Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

NEW WRIT

For Coatbridge and Airdrie, in the room of James Dempsey, Esquire, deceased.—[Mr. Michael Cocks.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LONDON TRANSPORT (LIVERPOOL STREET) BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday 10 June at Seven o'clock.

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL (By Order)

ALEXANDRA PARK AND PALACE BILL (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday 10 June.

SEVERN-TRENT WATER AUTHORITY [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the improvement of land drainage and the relief of flooding in the valley of the river Soar, to authorise the Severn-Trent Water Authority to construct works and to acquire lands, to confer further powers on the Authority, and for other purposes, it is expedient to authorise any increase in the sums payable out of money provided by Parliament under section 90 of the Land Drainage Act 1976.—[Mrs. Fenner.]

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN IRELAND

Airports

Mr. Robert Atkins: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the total of public expenditure on airports in Northern Ireland since 1980.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. David Mitchell): In the past three years almost £10·8 million of public money has been spent on the development of Belfast Aldergrove airport to provide better technical facilities and to give greater comfort to passengers, 1·4 million of whom used the airport last year.

Mr. Atkins: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Within that expenditure, are any moneys set aside for the return each night of British Airways' crews to Glasgow in an empty aeroplane because they are not prepared to stay

the night in Northern Ireland? In comparison with the other carrier to Northern Ireland, British Midland Airways, whose crews stay there, does he not think that this practice is a disgrace?

Mr. Mitchell: Such expenditures are a matter for British Airways, but since Northern Ireland is five times safer to stay overnight in than most major United States cities, I find the position inexplicable.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House how much of the money spent at Aldergrove airport came from the EEC?

Mr. Mitchell: I shall need notice of that question.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: Is my hon. Friend aware that the question of the cowardice of British Airways crews has been raised from time to time for years? Cannot those responsible sit down together to sort it out? Since the days when I used to complain about passengers being kept queuing in the rain at Aldergrove, have there not been improvements that are greatly to the credit of those concerned?

Mr. Mitchell: The modern facilities at Aldergrove are widely appreciated by the many who use the airport. With regard to the other matter that my hon. Friend raises, I shall meet the chief executive of British Airways, Mr. Roy Watts, when he comes to stay in Northern Ireland shortly.

Security

Mr. Molyneaux: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will report progress on the eradication of terrorism.

Mr. Latham: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will make a statement on the security situation.

Mr. Stanbrook: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. James Prior): Since I last answered questions on 29 April three members of the security forces and two civilians have died as a result of terrorist activity. On 30 April a soldier was killed in an explosion near Belleek in County Fermanagh when his patrol was attacked. On 4 May a policeman was shot dead while on foot patrol in Londonderry and a woman constable was badly wounded in the same attack. On 24 May a soldier in Londonderry died after being run over by an armoured vehicle which had been set on fire with petrol bombs. I draw particular attention to this incident because it seems that the attackers were children. One civilian was shot dead and two others were injured on 12 May when gunmen opened fire on the staff of a greengrocers shop in Belfast. The same day a former member of the UDR was shot dead in Strabane.
Other members of the security forces have also been injured, some seriously. A number of civilians have also been injured, including 11 in so-called punishment shootings.
I am pleased to inform the House that the security forces have continued to meet and counter the terrorists' challenge with their usual determination and vigour. Since 29 April 27 weapons and 2,899 rounds of ammunition have been recovered by the security forces, 57 persons


have been charged with terrorist-type offences, including eight with murder and seven with attempted murder. In the same period the security forces neutralised 14 bombs.

Mr. Molyneaux: Does the Secretary of State agree that cranks who agitate for a ban on plastic bullets should get their priorities right and demand an end to the use of petrol bombs, which have caused inhuman injuries and deaths to members of the security forces?

Mr. Prior: There is another question on the Order Paper about plastic baton rounds, and I shall answer that later. In general I agree with the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Latham: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, although the thoughts of all United Kingdom citizens are with our task force, the patient and brave work of our security forces continues unabated to deal with and extirpate the evils of terrorism in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Prior: Yes, Sir. I am grateful for what my hon. Friend said, and I endorse every word of it.

Mr. Stanbrook: Can my right hon. Friend give any good reason, other than hostility to Britain, for the Irish Republic not signing the European convention on the prevention of terrorism?

Mr. Prior: I noticed that my hon. Friend raised that subject with my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General the other day. The question was answered then. There is a continuing improvement in the co-operation of security across the border and in some of the actions that have recently been taken on legislation passed by the Government of the Republic, but there is a good deal more to be done.

Mr. Kilfedder: Since the political objectives of the Dublin Government are indistinguishable from the IRA's aims—one reason why terrorism has lasted for 13 years—will the Government abandon the joint talks with Dublin, because they appear to the northern Ulster people to be an erosion of the link with the rest of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Prior: I do not accept that, but I accept that the IRA is as big a menace, if not bigger, to a democratic Government in the south as it is to any Government in the North.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the deep revulsion in Northern Ireland this morning at the announcement that a self-confessed member of the INLA, who has admitted 10 charges of armed robbery, hijacking, possession of guns and membership of the INLA, received a suspended sentence from the court yesterday?

Mr. Prior: I have had no notice of that episode, but I have great confidence in the Northern Ireland courts.

Mr. William Ross: Will the Secretary of State condemn the junior savages who, aping their mentors, petrol bombed an army vehicle to such an extent that a young soldier in it was killed?

Mr. Prior: That was a disgraceful incident and, of course, I condemn it. The answer is for parents to keep young people away from those incidents, of which there have been all too many recently in Londonderry.

Mr. Stokes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I understand on good authority that since the start of the Falklands crisis there has been in other parts of the United

Kingdom, apart from Northern Ireland, a marked reduction in crime? Has there been a similar reduction in terrorism in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Prior: I do not have statistics to that effect, but the loyalty of the Northern Ireland people to the Government's attitude and the United Kingdom has not been exceeded anywhere in the last few weeks.

Mr. Concannon: The Opposition would like to express sympathy to all those who have suffered as a result of the recent injuries, deaths and murders in Northern Ireland. Is the Secretary of State aware that our sympathy extends in particular to the relatives of the young soldier killed by young bomb throwers? Does the Secretary of State accept that we welcome his decision to hold an inquiry into the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act, which inquiry we have advocated for a number of years? Does he agree that such an inquiry may help to eradicate terrorism and should therefore be held as soon as possible?

Mr. Prior: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. It is important that the review of the Act should take account of the recent conclusions of Lord Jellicoe's review of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act. We hope that it will be near completion before we establish our review body, which has been warmly welcomed by security chiefs in Northern Ireland.

United States of America (Ministerial Visit)

Mr. Adley: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has yet arranged a date for his visit to the United States of America for the purpose of countering Irish Republican Army propaganda.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Nicholas Scott): No date has yet been set for the visit that my right hon. Friend intends to make to the United States of America.

Mr. Adley: When the Secretary of State makes that visit, will he point out to the Americans that people who give money to the IRA are financing activity which we abhor, such as that by the children with their petrol bombs? In view of the answer that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary gave about the astonishing difference in the safety of staying overnight in Northern Ireland and staying overnight in the United States, will my hon. Friend draw that to the attention of the Northern Ireland Tourist Board so that it might use the statistics as a legitimate means of attracting tourists back to the Province?

Mr. Scott: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will convey that message when he visits the United States. In co-operation with the Northern Ireland Office and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the effort continues to persuade people in the United States and elsewhere of the folly of contributing to organisations that support the IRA's aims. I am sure that the Northern Ireland Tourist Board is aware of the problem. Indeed, it does a good job in seeking to attract visitors to Northern Ireland shores, but political progress would be a great help.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the Minister accept that there has been a great deal of reaction from the Government in countering adverse propaganda in the United States? Will he take steps to present the more positive image of Ulster, not waiting to react to IRA attacks through the media, but speaking positively on


behalf of the British people in Ulster? Will he facilitate the use of voluntary agencies, which have been working together in Ulster to present that case more profitably in the United States, bearing in mind that Ulster voices can be more effective in that work than English voices?

Mr. Scott: A number of Ulster voices in the United States put the case across on behalf of Northern Ireland. Plans are afoot for more such people to do that. My hon. Friend the Minister of State has visited the United States three times to put across the positive industrial argument for Northern Ireland. We shall continue to be as vigorous as we can in presenting our case.

Devolution

Mr. Winnick: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he intends to have further consultations with political parties in Northern Ireland regarding the proposed Assembly.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what further response he has received from political parties in Northern Ireland to his constitutional proposals since the Second Reading of the Northern Ireland Bill.

Mr. Arnold: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he now makes of political support in Northern Ireland for his proposals for elections to a devolved Assembly.

Mr. Prior: My main series of talks on the Government's proposals preceded the publication of the White Paper "Northern Ireland: A Framework for Devolution" and publication of the Northern Ireland Bill, which is currently before Parliament; but I shall naturally continue to be available for further discussions with the parties.
The Northern Ireland parties have continued to express some reservations about the Government's approach, and I fully recognise the doubts that exist. I have been encouraged, however, by the constructive response from many people in Northern Ireland, and I believe that there is a growing recognition that the flexible approach proposed by the Government is the right one in Northern Ireland's circumstances and represents the best hope for political progress.

Mr. Winnick: Since there seems to be so little support among the political parties on either side of the divide for the proposed Assembly, is it wise to go ahead with the legislation?

Mr. Prior: Yes, I think that it is wise. Although there is little support from the political parties, one must recognise that it would be difficult to get to the stage where any one political party could be seen to support proposals without making it impossible for the others to take part in anything that came after the proposals. I believe that there is a desire among the people of Northern Ireland for this flexible response and the new initiative that is necessary if Northern Ireland is again to have a degree of self-government and a responsibility for what happens there.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: Although most parties might take part in an Assembly which need become neither legislative nor the basis for an Executive—I hope that it will not—which parties endorse the rolling devolution policy set out in the White Paper?

Mr. Prior: As I have already said, at the moment, none do, but that is not necessarily a disadvantage.

Mr. Arnold: Has my right hon. Friend seen the Market Research Bureau poll which was published earlier this week? Is it not becoming increasingly apparent that the vast majority of the people who live in Northern Ireland would like the Government's initiative to make progress? May we have an assurance that the Government will not falter in their determination to see that the Northern Ireland Bill becomes law during this Session?

Mr. Prior: From time to time I have told my hon. Friend that one should not necessarily take the results of any one opinion poll too seriously, but that poll shows more widespread support for the Government's constitutional proposals than one would believe from listening to the Northern Ireland party leaders. That is something that we take into account.

Mr. McCusker: If the Secretary of State meets some of the local parties, will he tell them why he thinks that Mr. Charles Haughey thinks that his initiative is one of the most disastrous events that has ever taken place in the history of Anglo-Irish relations? Will the Secretary of State give his opinion in advance?

Mr. Prior: If I may say so, it would be far better if the Unionist Party started to tell its members why Mr. Haughey is wrong and what he believes in, and therefore why it might be to the advantage of the Unionist Party if it supported my proposals.

Mr. Flannery: When the Secretary of State has discussions with the various Northern Ireland political parties, will he try to find out why there is this strange state of affairs, which has already been mentioned, wherein most of the political parties are opposed to the idea——

Mr. Kilfedder: All of them.

Mr. Flannery: —all of them, and yet there is a poll which says that the people are in favour of it? Will he take into account the fact that some of us, including myself, for reasons completely different from those of the hon. Members behind me on the Unionist Party Bench, are opposed to the proposal because we believe that it was born of desperation and that it is heading back towards the old Stormont, which caused all the trouble?

Mr. Prior: All I can say is that, for once, the hon. Gentleman has probably hit the nail on the head. Everyone opposes this proposal for different reasons—some because it leads to devolution—that is opposed by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell)—some because it does not give enough power sharing, and some because it gives power sharing. There are countless reasons why people oppose it. The truth is that the people of Northern Ireland deserve something better than just opposition.

Plastic Bullets

Mr. Canavan: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent complaints there have been about deaths and injuries caused by plastic bullets; and whether any action has been taken in consequence.

Mr. Prior: I am well aware of the concern about baton rounds. I do not measure its seriousness by the number of complaints about them. I deeply regret the possibility that their use has resulted in deaths and injuries. But I have a


responsibility to enable the security forces to protect themselves when under violent attack. There is no easy alternative: some critics seem not to understand the ferocity of the attacks upon the security forces or the consequences if they fail to maintain order. The law rightly requires the security forces to use no more force than is strictly necessary, and I am in close touch with their commanders about their continuing review of operational policy.

Mr. Canavan: Since, over the past decade, 14 people, seven of them children under the age of 15, have been killed by plastic or rubber bullets, and, in one month of last year alone, 110 people required hospital treatment for plastic bullet injuries, is it not time that the Government imposed a ban on the use of these lethal bullets, instead of continuing and even escalating their use in Northern Ireland and issuing 3,000 of them for use by British police forces, as recently happened?

Mr. Prior: There is no escalation in the use of plastic bullets in Northern Ireland. I shall give the hon. Gentleman two statistics. When the violence was at its height last year, between January and August, the number of plastic bullets fired was 29,594. In the nine months since then, the number fired has been 225. That, I think, represents a markedly changed attitude and atmosphere. Of course, I want to build on that, but I am not prepared to leave the security forces unprotected.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that the European Assembly has no standing, status or right whatsoever to pass resolutions concerning the internal policing and affairs of any of its member States, and that that action is deeply resented in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Prior: I confirm what the right hon. Gentleman says.

Mr. Kilfedder: Is it not correct that on many occasions young people under the age of 15 have been used by the IRA to engage in wicked deeds, including the recent occasion to which the right hon. Gentleman referred—the petrol bombing of an Army vehicle, which resulted in the death of a young, courageous, decent soldier?

Mr. Prior: There are two problems of violence. One involves marauding gangs of youths with petrol bombs, stones, and so on. The other involves the vicious murders perpetrated with, for example, the gun. The two need different treatment. One of the problems is that sometimes the marauding gangs of youths, who start by throwing stones and petrol bombs, are merely a decoy to encourage the murderers with their rifles and other guns to get at our soldiers when they react. There is an interface between the two. In so far as they can be separated, we need to deal with them separately. I have had long talks with the security chiefs, who understand the position fully, and they have my full support in the action that they are taking.

Mr. James A. Dunn: Is the Secretary of State aware that his answers are supported by me and by my right hon. and hon. Friends? However, does he agree that the time has probably come for him and the Secretary of State for Defence to reappraise the need to use plastic bullets in certain circumstances, particularly when children are in the vicinity? Does he agree, arising from that review, that

if more regular constraints were imposed, they would avoid the tragic deaths, because not all children throw petrol bombs?

Mr. Prior: I assure the hon. Member and the House that this matter is under constant reappraisal, as, of course, are other matters of not control. I want to make that absolutely clear. No one recognises better than the security chiefs the repercussions of the tragic death of a young boy, as happened a little while ago. That adds to the problems of security generally and is well understood and well realised. We cannot afford to leave our security forces unprotected by what they consider to be the only effective weapon so far available. I assure the House that this is a matter of deep concern to the security chiefs, the people of Northern Ireland, and, of course, myself. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we keep the matter under close review.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I completely agree with the Secretary of State about the jurisdiction of the European Assembly, but does he not agree that the fact that the Assembly passed the resolution in question was a good propaganda exercise for the Irish Republican Army? Does he accept that the Government's representative at the European Assembly failed to give the Members of that Parliament one piece of evidence to justify the use of plastic bullets in the circumstances in which they are used in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Prior: I shall have to check on the latter point. I am under the impression that we were asked for details before the debate took place and that we provided them, certainly to those Members of the European Parliament with Conservative affiliations. However, I shall check that. I am certain that the evidence was made available.

Mr. Concannon: We are desperately doing our best to control and break up the numerous riots in Northern Ireland. There were riots on one occasion in Liverpool. From the evidence that is available to me, it seems clear that plastic bullets are now being used beyond the strict rules that govern their use. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that unless something is done to tighten political control of those weapons there is a danger of further alienating the people whom we are seeking to protect?

Mr. Prior: I do not believe that we can have political control in the accepted sense. Control must be left to the local commander. At the same time, it is obvious that that is a matter of extreme political importance. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I am constantly considering that matter and have been considering it in the last week.

De Lorean Motor Company

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about progress with the receivership of the De Lorean Motor Company.

Mr. Adam Butler: The joint receivers and managers of De Lorean Motor Cars Ltd. announced on 24 May that they were suspending production of cars in Belfast and would make almost all of the employees redundant on 31 May. They made it clear that in their view these decisions were unavoidable because of the large stocks of unsold cars held in the United States of America and Belfast and the withdrawal by a potential investor of his interest in the


business. They also stated that if, during the period that would be required to prepare for a realisation of the assets of the company any sound and viable proposals to reactivate the business should come forward, they would consider reopening the plant.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: Will my hon. Friend tell me what is the exact status of the company as from 31 May? Does it effectively close down or does it remain on a care-and-maintenance basis with the possibility of reactivation? How much public money is likely to be lost if the company is closed down? Will the company be freed from the American parent, which seems to have bedevilled the negotiations? Will the 4,000 unsold cars belong to Belfast or New York and, if they belong to Belfast, will they be considered as assets of DMC Belfast?

Mr. Butler: I shall attempt to answer at least some of my hon. Friend's questions. The state of the company is exactly as set out in the answer that I gave. The receivers-managers have decided that they must make preparations for realising the assets of the company. That process will take some time. If, in the meantime, serious bids come forward—one from the United Kingdom is being investigated at the moment—the managers will see whether such a bid will lead to a viable future for the company. If so, they will be prepared to reconsider opening the plant. In the meantime, it had been their intention to keep on a number of employees on the shop floor, as well as staff, so that in the event of an early bid that proved worth considering the plant could be reopened in a satisfactory condition. The steps that are being taken by the work force at the moment mean that unless the situation changes it will not be possible to keep on people on the shop floor, which would make it more difficult for the plant to be reopened. We believe that there are about 3,000 unsold finished cars, other than those in dealers' showrooms. About two-thirds of those belong to the parent or marketing company—DMC—and about 1,000 belong to DMC Ltd., the Belfast company.

Mr. Molyneaux: In addition to doing everything possible to safeguard the interests of the work force, will the Minister remember the plight of the creditor companies that have been caught up in this disaster?

Mr. Butler: Both the trade creditors and the work force stand to gain most from the reopening of the plant. That is clear. That is why the receivers, with the encouragement of the Government, have kept the plant in operation for the past three months. Because none of the interests expressed has come to fruition, they have decided, correctly, to suspend production and to set about preparing for the realisation of the assets. If that were to occur, the receivers and managers have made it clear in statements that the trade creditors would be likely to receive little or nothing.

Mr. Cryer: Does the Minister accept that if the assets are sold they will be let go at virtually scrap prices? The taxpayer has poured in many millions of pounds' worth of money? Does the Minister agree that the wisest thing to do with the plant would be to take it over, develop the car, which has been paid for by the taxpayer, as a public enterprise, prepare cars for the European market, give the workers who are sitting-in in desperation a proper basis for full public ownership and remove the firm from the clutches of what is, at best, a controversial entrepreneur?

Mr. Butler: The Labour Government of whom the hon. Gentleman was a member undertook this hazardous project. The hon. Gentleman is now advocating further expenditure of public money on a project that is demonstrably non-commercial, because private interests have not been prepared to put their money into it.

Dr. Mawhinney: Does my hon. Friend agree that the current behaviour of some of the work force, whatever the provocation, will act as a severe disincentive to people who might otherwise wish to invest money in the Province and perhaps even in the company?

Mr. Butler: My hon. Friend is right to refer to provocation, because the shock to the work force at Dunmurry must have been considerable. On the other hand, I must tell the work force that, whatever the shock and unhappiness, that does not justify its present action. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. So long as the sit-in continues, and particularly if the members of the work force insist on preventing spare parts and components from leaving the plant—which could provide for further car sales in the United States—they will prejudice further realisation of the assets.

Mr. Fitt: Does the Minister agree that the provocation, which has led to the takeover of the factory by the work force, was brought about because of the cavalier attitude of the Government and the receivers in refusing to discuss with the trade union representatives the tragedy that was about to take place, bringing with it such tragic redundancies? Does the Minister agree that, as most people were able to envisage what would happen, it would have been less hurtful if the Government had taken the opportunity to discuss with the representatives of the work force what was likely to happen?

Mr. Butler: I cannot agree with what the hon. Gentleman says. In no way can the behaviour of the receivers and managers be said to be cavalier. They have continued to run the plant for three months, trying to find a bidder for it, without success. I remind the hon. Gentleman, many of whose constituents work at the plant, that they have been paid for a three-day week over the past month, but have worked for only one day a week.

Mr. Concannon: Does the Minister accept that I should have liked to see as much thinking about the company while it was open and selling cars as there has been over its closure? Does the Minister further accept that the Opposition regard the shut-down of the De Lorean project as a tragedy for Northern Ireland? Does he acknowledge that the shut-down has great consequences for the economic future of the Province? That has already been shown by the Hyster company's decision to set up a factory in Dublin rather than in Antrim, because of a lack of confidence in the Government's economic policy. Does the Minister realise that if that firm had slipped through my fingers from the North to the South when I was i he Minister responsible for commerce in Northern Ireland my right hon. Friends the Members for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) and for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) would probably have sacked me on the spot?

Mr. Butler: There is no connection between the decision of Hyster to go to the Republic and the difficulties of De Lorean. Hyster is a sound company and has demonstrated in Northern Ireland that it is possible to manufacture satisfactorily and make profits. The company


that was launched on its way by the right hon. Gentleman's Government was a high-risk company with demonstrably non-commercial prospects. It was a risk that the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to take in Northern Ireland. Unfortunately, it has not paid off.

Ministerial Interview (Transcript)

Rev. Martin Smyth: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will seek to obtain a transcript of the interview given to Radio Telefis Eireann by the Earl of Gowrie on 4 May and place it in the Library.

Mr. Prior: Yes, Sir. A copy of a transcript of the interview has been placed in the Library today.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Is the Secretary of State aware of the grave disquiet in Northern Ireland about the recorded utterances of his noble Friend, especially his unskilled and inaccurate diagnosis of the Unionist people's mental state? Is he prepared to use his own undoubted skills to facilitate the early retirement of his noble Friend, thus fulfilling his desire to retire to the Republic of Ireland, perhaps even by voluntary redundancy?

Mr. Prior: I strongly recommend all hon. Members to read what my noble Friend said, because it was a brilliant interview, which set out in a precise way the great difficulties between the two traditions in Northern Ireland. In that context, he was saying to the Unionists that they have the security that they require and that it was wrong for them to continue to believe that the Government were trying to sell them down the river into the South.

Unemployment

Mr. Parry: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he next expects to meet the Irish Confederation of Trade Unions to discuss unemployment.

Mr. Adam Butler: Both my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I regularly meet the Northern Ireland Committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions to discuss various aspects of the Northern Ireland economy, including unemployment. I shall shortly be meeting the Northern Ireland Committee to discuss the Industrial Development Board proposals.

Mr. Parry: When the Minister meets the ICTU, will he tell it what plans the Government have to reduce the appalling level of unemployment that has grown under this Government from 61,000 in May 1979 to 113,000 and from 10·5 per cent. to nearly 20 per cent.? Those figures do not take into account the present crisis at De Lorean.

Mr. Butler: I frequently tell the Northern Ireland trade unions both of the benefit to the Northern Ireland economy of the Government's economic strategy—which has already demonstrated its success—and about the Government's recognition of the needs of the Province, as is shown by the massive resources that they are prepared to make available to support industrial development and therefore help to overcome the unemployment problem.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Would it not be to the general advantage if the trade union movement were represented through political channels in the House as it is for the rest of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Butler: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, that is not the case in the House, and I do not see that it would

necessarily benefit Northern Ireland if it were to be the case, either in the Assembly that will come about as a result of the elections, or directly at Westminster.

Mr. Soley: When the Minister next meets the trade unions, will he give them an assessment of the cost of unemployment benefits, which now runs at about £5,000 for each man out of work? Will he advise his colleagues to try to get a sensible balance between public expenditure for unemployment and related expenditure as opposed to aid to industry, as other Western European countries do more successfully?

Mr. Butler: One must take into account not only the financial cost of unemployment but the social cost. That is why the sums made available to the Northern Ireland economy are as large as they are.

Republic of Ireland (Ministerial Meetings)

Mr. Marlow: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he next expects to meet Ministers from the Republic of Ireland to discuss security.

Mr. Flannery: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has any plans to meet the Taoiseach of the Republic of Ireland.

Mr. Prior: I have no immediate plans to do so.

Mr. Marlow: Perhaps my right hon. Friend could bring forward some plans fairly quickly and talk to Mr. Haughey and his Ministers, not only about taking people from the South into the North if they have committed offences in the North, but about our security needs in the South Atlantic. Will he tell Mr. Haughey that the longer that he acts as a henchman for General Galtieri the more concerned people in this country will be about the rights of his citizens to vote in our elections?

Mr. Prior: Some of the things that my hon. Friend would wish me to tell Mr. Haughey might help and some undoubtedly would not. That might be a good reason for not seeing him just yet.

Mr. Flannery: Will the Minister try to disregard such hotheads [Interruption.]—and fatheads as well, such as the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), who are always trying to create a gap between Britain and the Republic of Ireland? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is in everyone's interests, as suggested in the recent lecture by Dr. Garrett FitzGerald, who may be the next Prime Minister of the Republic, to have courts in common in the whole of Ireland? That might act as a bridge. Is it not in everyone's interests to have peace between us and to disregard those un-siren-like voices that are trying to cause trouble?

Mr. Prior: It is some surprise to me that the hon. Gentleman describes himself in the manner that he does. We must draw a sharp distinction between the utterances of some politicians and perhaps the true mood of the people of the Irish Republic. If we do that, perhaps some of the peace to which Dr. FitzGerald draws attention, and the goodwill that exists between our countries, can be better fulfilled.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Falkland Islands

Mr. Michael Brown: asked the Prime Minister if she will make a statement on the Falkland Islands.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): The reply to this question is inevitably longer than usual.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence made a full statement yesterday. The House would not expect me to go into details about the operations in progress, but our forces on the ground are now moving from the bridgehead. Yesterday my right hon. Friend gave initial figures for casualties on HMS "Coventry" and the "Atlantic Conveyer". The House will wish to know that the latest information is that one of the crew of HMS "Coventry" is known to have died, 20 are missing and at least 23 of the survivors are injured. Four of those on board the "Atlantic Conveyor" are known to have died, eight are missing, including the master, and five of the survivors are injured. The next of kin have been informed. We all mourn those tragic losses.
Yesterday the United Nations Security Council adopted unanimously a resolution on the Falkland Islands. It reaffirms resolution 502 and requests the Secretary-General to undertake a renewed mission of good offices, to enter into contact with Britain and Argentina with a view to negotiating mutually acceptable conditions for a ceasefire and to report again to the Security Council within seven days. We shall, of course, co-operate fully with the Secretary-General in that.
In voting for the resolution our representative at the United Nations made it clear that, in view of Argentina's continued refusal to implement resolution 502, the only acceptable condition for a ceasefire is that it should be unequivocally linked with a firm and unconditional Argentine commitment immediately to commence withdrawal of its forces from the islands.

Mr. Brown: I thank my right hon. Friend for that detailed reply and acknowledge what she said about the United Nations. Will she take this opportunity to make it clear that the diplomatic proposals that were put forward, and that have been continually put forward by the United Kingdom, contained proposals for a British withdrawal, but that as the position has now changed, and since those proposals have been rejected consistently by Argentina, there can be no question of a British withdrawal of forces?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is quite right. In the published proposals that we debated last Thursday there was a linked withdrawal of British forces and Argentine forces. Those proposals have been withdrawn and as our ambassador to the United Nations made clear when he voted for the resolution, there can now be no question of a British withdrawal. He said:
We are talking about Argentine withdrawal. We cannot now accept that Argentine withdrawal be linked in any way to parallel British withdrawal.

Mr. Foot: May I first join the right hon. Lady in the expressions of feeling about our forces and their families, and our concern that the fighting should be brought to an end as soon as possible with the minimum number of casualties? On the diplomatic aspect of the matter, to which she referred, while it is clearly true that the reaffirmation of resolution 502 involves the withdrawal of the Argentine forces, does the right hon. Lady also agree

that it is right, and in conformity with resolution 502, that there should be further proposals on the table, if not necessarily the same as offered previously, nevertheless one that will offer the Argentines an alternative to unconditional surrender? Does the right hon. Lady agree that that is a sensible approach, that it will reduce the danger of casualties, and that it should be included in her response to the Secretary-General?

The Prime Minister: The essential feature of resolution 502 is the unconditional demand for immediate withdrawal of all Argentine forces from the Falklands. That was to be followed by negotiations. Negotiations were, of course, in progress when the Argentine invaded. They had been in progress for some considerable time, but the Falkland Islanders did not wish British sovereignty to pass in any way to the Argentine. We should co-operate with the Secretary-General, but in the terms I have stated.

Mr. Foot: What I was asking the right hon. Lad) to do was not in any way in conflict with resolution 502, and certainly not in conflict with what was decided at the United Nations yesterday. But the Government will have to make some response to those proposals. My suggestion—I believe it to be a sensible proposal that will reduce the prospect of casualties—is that the British Government should be making some proposals in response to the Secretary-General's approaches which will offer an alternative to unconditional surrender. If the fighting continues to the bitter end, many more lives will be lost.

The Prime Minister: The objective of sending British forces and to try to retake by force what was taken from us by force is, first, repossession, secondly, restoration of British administration and thirdly, reconstruction, followed by consultation with the islanders—a true consultation—about their wishes and interests in the future.

Mr. Foot: Is that all the right hon. Lady is going to say—

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I hope so.

Mr. Foot: —in response to the Secretary-General's approaches? The resolution that was passed by the Security Council yesterday was properly supported by the British Government. It envisaged discussions on this matter. I urge the Government to consider more far-reaching proposals than what the right hon. Lady has given from the Dispatch Box today.

The Prime Minister: The talks with the Secretary-General will be about unequivocal withdrawal of Argentine forces in accordance with resolution 502 as a condition for a ceasefire. After that, we shall be in repossession of the islands. We then wish to restore British administration. Administration has to continue under existing British law and under existing democratic institutions. There will be a great deal of reconstruction work to do, and also talk about development of further resources. It will take some time for the islanders to crystallise their views, but then we must have discussions with them about the longer-term interests. It will be most unwise for us to give away any of that in advance.

Mr. Latham: asked the Prime Minister whether she will make a statement on the Falkland Islands.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I have just given.

Mr. Latham: Since major military action may even now be taking place, will my right hon. Friend confirm that dictatorships rarely understand the moral strength and courage of a democracy and that democracies themselves understand the need to avoid probing questions on military details and secrets that might unintentionally help the enemy?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We enjoy full freedom of speech in a democracy. I know that my hon. Friend and many hon. Members are very much aware that too much discussion about the timing and details of operations can only help the enemy and hinder and make things more difficult for our forces. In wartime there used to be a phase "Careless talk costs lives". It still holds good.

Mr. Meacher: Will the right hon. Lady reconsider her answer to my right hon. Friend? In view of the further military pressure that is now being exerted by British forces, will the Prime Minister now undertake to retable the British proposed draft interim agreement so that, without loss of military momentum in the interim but, equally, to avoid risk of substantial loss of life in retaking Port Stanley, these proposals, acceptable to Britain and requiring withdrawal of Argentine forces from the islands, shall lie on the table unamended, ready for immediate Argentine signature as a condition of ceasefire?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I reaffirm what I said to the right hon. Gentleman.

Dr. Owen: Will the Prime Minister accept that many hon. Members understand that, following the repossession of part of the Falkland Islands, it is reasonable for the Government to make it clear that the exact parallelism of the withdrawal procedure that was included in the Government's document put before the House of Thursday now has to be re-thought? However, will the Prime Minister be careful before she abandons the principles embraced in that document? It won Britain many friends in the world as being a reasonable negotiating position on which it might be possible to achieve withdrawal of the Argentine forces, leading to an honourable negotiated settlement that would last.

The Prime Minister: The proposals in that document were for an interim arrangement so that we should not have further conflict. The proposals in that document were rejected. We have now gone into the islands to do what I believe the islanders wish—to repossess them, to restore British administration, to reconstruct the life of the islands and then to consult the islanders on what they want. That will obviously depend in some measure on what other nations are prepared to do, how much they are prepared to invest, how much they are prepared to develop the islands and, of course, on what arrangements can be procured for the long-term security of the islands. I am sure that that is the right way to approach the problem.

Mr. Temple-Morris: Can my right hon. Friend give any information about whether known arms suppliers to Argentina have agreed to British requests to cease supplies pending a cessation of hostilities? Can she say whether they are keeping their word on this important subject?

The Prime Minister: There appear to be very active efforts on the part of the Argentines to secure further supplies of missiles and spares and armaments in various parts of the world. We have obviously been in touch with

the nations concerned about this, and the political heads, but we are very much aware that supplies may be reaching Argentina, not direct from those countries, but through third parties.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Does the Prime Minister appreciate that the closing quote in her speech yesterday
If England do rest but true
caused considerable offence in Scotland? If this affair is not a purely English one, would the right hon. Lady kindly repair the discourtesy by paying tribute to the sacrifice and role played by Service men of Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish origin?

The Prime Minister: I am sorry if by quoting Shakespeare I caused offence. I did consider it for a moment, but thought that I could not really edit Shakespeare. As a matter of fact, I thought that Shakespeare belonged to Scotland almost as much as to the rest of the United Kingdom. I remind the hon. Gentleman that I went to Perth and made a major speech, in which I pointed out that some of the best characters who are regarded as belonging to the whole of the United Kingdom are distinctly Scottish in character. I gladly pay tribute to them and to the splendid efforts of Scottish Service men, merchant men and people everywhere.

Engagements

Mr. Dubs: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 27 May.

The Prime Minister: This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Dubs: Does the Prime Minister agree that the long-term security of the islanders and peace in the South Atlantic could be better established were the Government to make a clearer statement at this stage of the basis on which the foundations for such a settlement could be achieved?

The Prime Minister: It is part of democracy that one consults the people themselves to find out their wishes and interests. I should have thought that every hon. Member understood that. After the hostilities are over it will take some time for the views of the islanders to crystallise. Those views will depend in some measure on what other people are prepared to do. All this will take time to talk through, and I am sure that we are right to take that time.

Questions to Ministers

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Recalling that Mr. Speaker Selwyn Lloyd and Mr. Speaker King often used to let Question Time to my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) run for a quarter of an hour extra, and accepting that, quite rightly, the Prime Minister took some time today to answer a substantive question, is there not a case for allowing Prime Minister's Question Time to run to another five minutes?

Mr. Speaker: I well recall, during the days of that extra time, the strong complaints that came from supporters of the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson).

Business of the House

Mr. Michael Foot: Will the Leader of the House state the business for the week following the recess?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): The business for the first week after the Adjournment will be as follows:
TUESDAY 8 JUNE AND WEDNESDAY 9 JUNE—Consideration in Committee on the Northern Ireland Bill.
THURSDAY I0 JUNE—Supply [19th Allotted Day]: The subject for debate to be announced later.
Motions on Members' pay and allowances.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed Private Business for consideration at 7 o'clock.
FRIDAY II JUNE—Remaining stages of the Merchant Shipping (Liner Conferences) Bill and of the Taking of Hostages Bill [Lords].

Mr. Foot: I wish to put three matters to the right hon. Gentleman. As to the recall of the House that might be required, I think that this matter was fully discussed and raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) and I am sure that the Leader of the House will take account of what was said in that debate.
I understand that later there is to be a statement on the industrial action in the NHS. I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will be ready to arrange a debate on this matter as soon as we return. It indicates a serious state of concern in the Health Service. I trust that such a debate will be arranged. It is of grave concern that people working in the Health Service do not seem to have anything like the consideration that has been given to judges, senior civil servants and many others.
The third issue is a matter that I have raised with the right hon. Gentleman on a series of occasions, but the danger has been increasing throughout. Even though the House, quite naturally, has been primarily concerned with the crisis in the Falkland Islands, I do not believe that the Government have responded sufficiently to our concern about the dangers that are arising in British Rail as a result of the proposed closure of the railway workshops and other developments on the railways. The crisis has been brought about because the Government are starving British Rail of its finance, and it is right that the matter should be debated in the House. Indeed, it would have been much better had the right hon. Gentleman responded to that appeal earlier.
We are talking about the future of the railways and whether we shall have an adequate rail system if some Government decisions are not reversed in the immediate future. I stress as strongly as I can that it is a great pity that we have not had a debate already. We sought to secure it by other means, and I hope that we shall have an absolute guarantee from the right hon. Gentleman that we shall have that debate very soon after we return from the recess.

Mr. Biffen: As the right hon. Gentleman said, the possible recall of the House during the recess was fully discussed on Tuesday, and I shall certainly take account of the views that were expressed.
I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman contains his judgment about the possibility of further discussions on the NHS industrial action until after my right hon. Friend has had a chance to make his statement.
The right hon. Gentleman will recollect that in the adjournment debate last Tuesday there was considerable coverage of the serious issue of the railways. Doubtless, both the circumstances of the NHS and the railways will be in the minds of his right hon. Friends and himself when they come to choose their subject for the debate on Thursday week.

Mr. Foot: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman's reply about the railway crisis is anything like sufficient. Although several of my hon. Friends took the opportunity to raise the matter in the debate on the adjournment, that is quite different from having a debate in which the Government are required to reply. Their reply on the subject was totally inadequate, and as the right hon. Gentleman gave it himself he must be a better authority on that matter than anyone else. I would have thought that he would have been only too eager to accept my request. I again urge him, before this crisis explodes, to provide the House of Commons with a chance to discuss it in Government time.

Mr. Biffen: As to how these matters are handled in debate, whether it be the railways or anything else, conviction must be in the eye of the orator. I accept that the right hon. Gentleman is deeply concerned about the two issues that he mentioned and I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friends to the points that he makes. Clearly, the business that has been announced for the week after the recess does not permit a debate on these matters in Government time. I am afraid that that is how it must stand for the first week back.

Sir Paul Bryan: Has my right hon Friend noted early-day motion 424 signed by no fewer than 106 right hon. and hon. Members, which calls on the Government to stamp out the growing trade in pirated video cassettes?
[That this House calls on Her Majesty's Government to stamp out as a matter of urgency the great and growing market in pirate video cassettes; draws attention to the fact that some 65 per cent. of video cassettes sold in the United Kingdom are now seen by this means, and that this is now a serious area of illegal activity which is having a gravely damaging effect on both the production and exhibition sides of the British film industry.]
Is he aware that 65 per cent. of the market is now pirated and that that is causing great damage to the film industry? Can we have an opportunity to discuss this important subject?

Mr. Biffen: I recognise at once that my hon. Friend touches on a subject of real concern within the trade, and I shall draw his remarks to the attention of my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: As long as the Government are minded to continue including in the business of the House the ill-omened Northern Ireland Bill, will the right hon. Gentleman, in addition to consulting the usual "usual channels", take the mind of hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies on what might be to the greatest convenience of the House as a whole, including those most closely concerned?

Mr. Biffen: I shall be happy to engage Members from Northern Ireland to secure the passage of the Bill, and I shall be happy to accept representations from the right hon. Gentleman or any of his hon. Friends.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Is the Leader of the House aware that a well-conducted student lobby today presented a well-documented case about grants in higher education? Will he look at the possibility of an early debate on higher education, perhaps an extended debate on the order implementing the grant award, so that the House can look at the serious disincentive to students from poor backgrounds that the eroded grant now represents?

Mr. Biffen: I would not like to make a judgment about whether the rules of order would enable such a debate to arise on the topic mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, but I shall bear in mind the point that he has made. However, there is no question of the Government supplying time in the first week after the return.

Mr. Terence Higgins: Has my right hon. Friend seen early-day motion 272 regarding restrictions on the importation of seal products?
[That this House expresses its concern at the slaughter of 200,000 baby seals in Northern Canada and, bearing in mind that the United Kingdom is one of the largest importers of seal pelts, welcomes the resolutions passed overwhelmingly by the European Parliament (160 votes to 10) on 11th March calling for a ban on the importation into the European Economic Community of all skins and products derived from young harp and hooded seals and on products coming from seals whose stocks are depleted, threatened or endangered; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government not only to accept this proposal at the Council of Ministers but also, following the example of the United States of America, France, Holland, Italy and Sweden, to take action itself to introduce such an import ban as soon as possible.]
If the business on Friday 11 June does not go its full time, will he provide time for a debate on the matter then?

Mr. Biffen: I cannot give that undertaking. Nevertheless, I shall examine my right hon. Friend's point. I shall also make my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade aware of this point.

Mr. John Roper: Will the Leader of the House consider the point that I raised at business questions last week and ensure that, before the Prime Minister goes to New York in the third week in June for the United Nations special session on disarmament, the House will have an opportunity to consider the proposals that the Government will advance?

Mr. Biffen: The time of the meeting is drawing dangerously close. I am conscious that the House has not had a day's debate on foreign affairs, which could also include the point that the hon. Gentleman raised. I do not wish to make him too optimistic. At any rate, the debate for which the hon. Gentleman asked could not take place in the week that I have covered in my announcement.

Mr. Edward du Cann: If we are to debate hon. Members' remuneration on Thursday week, presumably including the question of allowances, will my right hon. Friend be ready to give us a view on the report of the Select Committee on linkage? Does he agree that it would seem to be in the interests of us all to have a one-day rather than a two-day debate on those matters?

Mr. Biffen: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: Will the Leader of the House reconsider laying the order concerning hon. Members' pay and allowances next Thursday at seven o'clock, when we do not have a three-line Whip? Does he agree that, although many hon. Members will probably be willing to bow to a 4 per cent. increase in salary in present circumstances, a serious debate on secretarial and research allowances would be preferred?

Mr. Biffen: I appreciate that the House will wish to have a serious and wide-ranging debate on those matters. That is why I was happy to confirm to my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Du Cann) that it will cover not only the pay increases for the prospective year but the report of the Select Committee on hon. Members' salaries that is chaired by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Thomas). With regard to the time, the precedent is that the matter is normally taken either in the evening during the week or on a Friday. I have had to make a judgment and, for all the imperfections, which I readily concede, the proposed time is as helpful a time as is available to the House.

Mr. John Stokes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some self-control will be expected of him in not calling back the House next week for any military event? With regard to diplomatic events, will he bear in mind that such events are most unlikely and that the House can wait to hear about them until a week on Tuesday?

Mr. Biffen: I am sure that my hon. Friend recognises that I shall be guided by the motion that was passed on Tuesday concerning the possibility or otherwise of a recall of Parliament. Throughout the matter, we are all enjoined to demonstrate some self-control.

Mr. Ioan Evans: As we went to the Falkland Islands to protect 500 families there and as there have already been 600 tragic losses, will the Leader of the House ensure that, when the House returns, we shall be given a statement about what is being done to protect the lives of women and children on the island who could be killed in the cross-fire between British and Argentine forces?

Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman raises a substantial point. I am sure that he realises that it is because we have had no fewer than 10 statements and six debates on the Falklands since 3 April that I believe that he is not entitled to be fearful that the matter will not be brought before the House.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call those hon. Members who have been rising in their places.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is desirable to have a debate on the developments of politics in South London in our first week back? I refer to the apparent link between crime and politics, threats to the outgoing mayor of Lambeth, and the destruction of vehicles in Wandsworth. Does he agree that such a debate would enable the Opposition not only to dissociate themselves in every way from those threats but to make it clear that, if the Labour Party wanted


to give a position of prominence to the disabled or blacks, and if the leader of the council stood down, representatives of either could be appointed to Ted Knight's position?

Mr. Martin Flannery: You silly boy.

Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend has made his point. I wonder whether we need a debate on this subject during the week of our return. I know that the matter gives rise to great anxiety. On the programme that I have announced for the week after the Recess, it is clear that there is no Government time for such a debate.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Does the Leader of the House agree that there should be two statements, one of which should be in the next 24 hours, setting out the Government's response to those thinking Americans who see great dangers for the whole of the English-speaking world in the prospect of outright British military victory? Does he agree that there should be a second statement, either when we return or next week, about how the Government see the long-term solutions to the Falkland Island problem, about which they have been extremely coy, since so much is dictated by injured political pride on both sides of the argument?

Mr. Biffen: There has been no lack of occasions for matters associated with the Falklands to be debated in the House. I shall, of course, draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to what the hon. Gentleman has said and to his belief that there should be a statement on the matter.

Mr. Tony Marlow: When considering the possibility of a debate in Government time about the closure of the British Rail workshops, will my right hon. Friend consider the implications of that as a precedent? Does he agree that, if there is a debate on that matter, there would have to be a debate on the closure of any factory or workshop whether it be in the public or private sector? Does he agree that there is no difference between a closure in British Rail or in any firm in the private sector?

Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend underlines why I have great reluctance to accede to the request of the Leader of the Opposition on that point.

Mr. Greville Janner: Does the Leader of the House agree that it is time for a discussion on the problems of hospitals? Will he allow the debate to be wide enough to encompass the closure of such hospitals as Glenfield district hospital in Leicester before they have even opened, due to the enormous shortage of money that is now being experienced? May we at least have a statement on the circumstances of areas such as Leicester, which are wholly disadvantaged in health matters?

Mr. Biffen: I should at once like to correct any misconception about a debate on the National Health Service. I have given no undertaking that there will be such a debate in Government time. I take note of what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said about health circumstances in his own area. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services is also here to take note of what he has said.

Mr. David Winnick: Will the Leader of the House bear in mind that there is a new factor regarding the House being recalled during the recess—namely, the resolution passed by the Security Council yesterday and the question of the Secretary-General reporting back to the Security Council within seven days about the possibility of a negotiated ceasefire? Do the Government intend simply to ignore that new plea for peace from the Security Council?

Mr. Biffen: I have nothing to add to what was said about that by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at Question Time.

Mr. Robert Parry: Has the Leader of the House seen early-day motion 466 dealing with hangings in Malaysia, which has received the support of 181 Members?
[That this House, concerned that 31 persons have been hanged in Malaysia since March 1980 including a woman and a 14-year-old schoolboy, calls upon the Government of Malaysia to stop further hangings, in particular the forthcoming execution of Mr. Tan Chay Wa; and calls for all persons sentenced to death under the special procedure to be allowed to leave the country.]
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have received news today that further hangings are imminent, including those of a farmer and another young woman? Will he ask his right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to make urgent representations to the Malaysian Government on humanitarian grounds?

Mr. Biffen: Although I wish to say nothing that would commit my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to making a gesture that might be construed as intervention in the domestic affairs of another country, I recognise that this matter gives rise to deep feelings in many parts of the House and I shall draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the hon. Gentleman's question.

Mr. Bob Cryer: In view of the controversial nature of the Northern Ireland legislation, would it not be better if the Government gave up one day in the first week after the recess to the report on the Crown Agents, which is a comprehensive unfolding of incompetence and greed? Does he recall that this Parliament decided that the report of the inquiry into this controversial matter should be published? Does he agree that the report is extremely expensive and should not be allowed simply to gather dust now that it has been completed? If we cannot have a debate in the first week back, will he consider the possibility of a debate as soon as possible thereafter?

Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman will have noted from the reply to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, Central (Mr. Grant) on this that the Government are now studying the findings in greater detail. Therefore, there can be no question of dust being allowed to collect. The question of a debate raises wider issues, but it might perhaps be arranged in due course through the usual channels if it were thought appropriate.

National Health Service (Industrial Action)

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Norman Fowler): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the industrial action in the National Health Service.
The House will wish to be informed of the latest position on industrial action in the Health Service in support of the current pay claim and the action being taken to ensure, as far as possible, that patient services are. maintained. I am sure that the House will agree that the welfare and safety of patients must always be our first concern.
First, let me report on the action taken last week in the national 24-hour stoppage called by Health Service unions affiliated to the Trades Union Congress. The action was widespread, but patchy in its effect. In some areas, there was serious disruption of services. In other areas, there was limited response or none at all. The majority of nurses continued to provide patient care, reflecting their traditional concern not to do anything that might harm patients. However, the action did have an effect on patient services. In many places, admissions were restricted to accident and emergency cases and routine treatment was restricted or prevented altogether. Similarly, services for patients in hospital were affected, so that, for example, cold meals had to be served and clean linen was not available. This demonstrates the plain fact that industrial action cannot be taken in the Health Service without adverse effects on patients.
One further point that I should like to make clear concerns the risk of emergency services breaking down. It was clear last week that the assurance given by the trade unions that accident and emergency services would be fully protected could not be guaranteed in all areas. This underlines the potential danger of continuing industrial action in the Health Service and should be a vital consideration not only to those responsible for making arrangements to meet this contingency but also to those who seek to justify or support the action.
Nevertheless, certain unions have indicated that they intend to continue industrial action. Clearly, the main task for management is to continue to provide the widest possible range of services and to ensure the welfare and safety of patients. The main responsibility for dealing with industrial action lies with the local health authorities, but we have reminded them of the guidance issued by the Government in December 1979 on the action to be taken when industrial relations break down. My Department is in touch with the relevant authorities to ensure that the appropriate arrangements are being made. The Government are taking steps to ensure that an emergency service can be maintained.
It is important to recognise that over the past three years the National Health Service has enjoyed real growth and secure and growing employment. The numbers of full-time staff directly employed in the hospital and community health services have increased by 47,000 including 34,000 nursing and midwifery staff. The offers on the table give increases of more than 6 per cent. to about half the work force, including nurses and midwives and junior doctors, and will increase the pay bill by 5·5 per cent. This rises to 6·5 per cent. if the growth in services is included.
The claims by the Health Service unions are not only for pay increases of about 12 per cent. but also for other improvements such as reduced hours of work and more annual leave. If met in full, these claims would add about £1 billion to Health Service expenditure in a full year. Such claims could be met only at the expense of the taxpayer or by reducing the level of health services. In the Government's view, the offers on the table which will increase expenditure by £320 million this year, plus the cost of employing more staff to provide the extra services planned, are both fair and realistic. As to the future, we have already made it quite clear that we want to discuss urgently with the nurses and midwives Whitley Council new permanent arrangements for determining their pay so that we can avoid these annual difficulties.
I must emphasise again that industrial action in the Health Service can only harm patient services and may put their health and safety at risk. The longer the action continues, the greater the risk. I therefore urge the unions to reconsider their action.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I searched in vain in that wholly inadequate statement for any acknowledgement of the Secretary of State's responsibility for the current state of affairs. It was the Secretary of State who directed the management side of the Whitley council as to the percentage to be offered, thus distorting the entire management machinery, and it was the Government who destroyed the Clegg commission, which was capable of providing the machinery to examine outside analogues and determine a proper rate of pay.
Will the Secretary of State now acknowledge that it is not just the nursing profession, important though it is, that has a strong commitment to patient care? Nowhere in his statement did he acknowledge that if he had been prepared to refer the matter to ACAS and to deal with the problem of low pay in the health services we should not now be faced with industrial action.
Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that Sir Sidney Hamburger has written to him on behalf of the chairmen of the regional health authorities protesting at the divisive nature of the offer of 6·2 per cent. to the nurses but only 4 per cent. to ancillary and other workers? Will he confirm that he has been asked to move immediately towards ACAS with a view to ending the industrial action? Will he now accept that the Government are responsible for the present position and take immediate action to remedy it?

Mr. Fowler: The hon. Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody) is quite wrong to say that Sir Sidney Hamburger wrote to me on behalf of the regional chairmen. The views that he put were his own. They were not the views of the regional chairmen. I can say that with authority, as I met the regional chairmen only last week. I ask the hon. Lady to accept that.
I believe that the offers that have been made are altogether fair. We propose that nurses and midwives should receive an average increase of 6·4 per cent. Clearly, there is a differential. One of the arguments put by Sir Sidney Hamburger and others was that everyone should receive exactly the same, even if that meant 4 per cent. We do not accept that.
As for arbitration, I do not believe that we can subcontract the decision as to how much the nation can afford in that way. Additional money has already been made available, as the hon. Lady will know. I hope that she will acknowledge that.
On the long-term determination of pay, I believe that our proposals go much further and are far better than the old Clegg system. We are trying to devise a long-term arrangement for determining the pay of nurses and midwives. We have made it clear——

Mrs. Dunwoody: rose——

Mr. Fowler: If the hon. Lady will let me finish, she might learn something about what we would then expect.
We would then expect that to have an implication for the professions supplementary to medicine such as physiotherapy. I am also prepared to consider the implications that that would have for the rest of the workers in the National Health Service.
We must get down to talks upon those new permanent arrangements. The delay has been one not on the part of the Government but on the part of the unions.

Mrs. Dunwoody: The Secretary of State must not continue to mislead the House. Is it not true that on 19 May the West Midlands regional health authority sent him a long telex urging that the dispute be referred to ACAS? As many as five of the 14 regional health authorities have complained that this immediate and divisive action is having an impossible effect upon the way that they are working.
Will the Secretary of State stop quoting the increased number of workers in the National Health Service when he knows that it is EEC directives on nurses' hours, not Government policy, that have made the difference to his statistics. That is clear.
Further, will the Secretary of State now acknowledge that, despite the divisive offer that he is making to nursing staff, their increased lodging charges and national insurance contributions will mean that in many instances they will take away the magnificent sum of 50p a week?

Mr. Fowler: I repeat what I said to the hon. Lady about the regional chairmen. I met them last week, and the views that she expresses were not put to me at that meeting. The hon. Lady is capable of checking for herself the agreed point that was put to me.
I should have thought that the increase in staff was a matter for some congratulation for the Government who have been able to increase by 47,000—[HON. MEMBERS: "They have not done it.']—the number of staff in the National Health Service and provide the money to finance that.

Mr. Martin Flannery: Do not mislead the House.

Mr. Fowler: In addition, on present plans we shall, over the coming year, increase staff by a further 10,000. I know of no other public service, certainly nowhere in the private sector, that has a record of that kind.
The hon. Lady must also understand that the nurses' offer is now out to ballot with the Royal College of Nursing and I hope that it will be accepted.
At some stage I also hope to hear that the Opposition condemn industrial action in the National Health Service as affecting patients' care.

Mr. William Hamilton: No, we do not.

Mr. Edward du Cann: Whatever the rights and wrongs of this unhappy matter—it is difficult not to have some sympathy with the lower paid in the National Health Service—can we not agree universally that the

exclusive arbiter of what is or is not an emergency should be the doctor and no one but the doctor? Is it not the duty of managements to protect against bullying, intimidation and all sorts of arguments from those who are not qualified to make such judgments?

Mr. Fowler: I agree with both of my right hon. Friend's points. Of course I have sympathy with the case that is being put, but we are trying to achieve the development of the National Health Service.
I am sure that my right hon. Friend is correct on his second point. No one other than medically qualified staff can make a medical decision. I hope that that message will go forward.

Mr. William Hamilton: Is the Minister aware that his crocodile tears on behalf of patients will deceive nobody? Does he not recognise that any discomfort caused to patients is his responsibility and his alone? He talks about what the nation can afford, but has he read The Times this morning which reports that the cost of the Falkland Islands disaster at the moment is running at £1,000 million and it will probably double before the end of the operation? That is the cost of killing people, and he is prepared to offer 6 per cent. to nurses to save people's lives. Those are the Government's priorities. Does the Minister recognise that half the full-time nurses in the National Health Service have weekly earnings below the Government's poverty line? That is completely indefensible. It is obscene. If the Minister cares about the National Health Service, he should resign.

Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman has many of his facts typically and absolutely wrong. First, most of the House, and, I think, most of the public, will disagree fundamentally with him on the comparison that he makes with the Falklands action. If the hon. Gentleman is going to quote The Times he might quote The Times leader of yesterday, which is entirely against the case that he has just put.
With regard to the poverty line, the hon. Gentleman is talking about a figure of £82 in respect of family income supplement. What the hon. Gentleman knows but does not say is that average earnings for full-time male ancillaries are £104 a week.

Mr. Reg Race: Tell us about the women.

Mr. Fowler: The figures that have been provided in that respect are final.
The average figure for women is £84 a week——

Mr. Race: That is right.

Mr. Fowler: —that is also above, not below the poverty line, as the hon Gentleman said.

Mr. Clement Freud: It is much to be regretted that nothing in the Minister's statement would have given any hope to nurses, nor, indeed, give any credit to the service or industry of nurses, whether or not they were out on strike.
Will the Minister admit that giving judges and senior civil servants large pay increases will do nothing to make the nurses more helpful to his argument? Will he also look now into an incomes policy and the urgent need to implement it?

Mr. Fowler: The Top Salaries Review Body recommendations are to catch up with the recommended


levels of awards for 1980. The hon. Gentleman should understand that the offer that has been made to nurses is clearly and explicitly above the average at 6·4 per cent. Therefore, we recognise the nurses' special position, and I gladly pay tribute to them. The Royal College of Nursing is balloting on that issue at the moment.

Mrs. Jill Knight: Further to the Minister's answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann), did he note that it was reported in one newspaper earlier this week that some patients are being turned back at the door of the operating theatre on the say-so of trade unionists? Can he confirm that even with the extra people now in the National Health Service by virtue of what he has done, there is still a waiting list and no patient reaches the door of the operating theatre without needing the operation? Can the Minister stop this appalling decision-making by lay people who have no medical knowledge?

Mr. Fowler: I did read that report. Such a situation, if correct, is entirely indefensible.

Mr. Flannery: Are you a doctor?

Mr. Fowler: As I said to my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann), no one but a medically qualified person is capable of making decisions that can literally be a matter of life and death.

Mr. Race: If other members of the public sector, such as firemen, teachers, civil servants, and so on can have pay settlements above 4 per cent. and, indeed, above 6·3 per cent. and can go to arbitration, what is wrong with giving National Health Service workers the same? Why are the Government saying that poor judges need an 18 per cent. pay rise in order to compensate for inflation, when National Health Service workers need a £30 a week wage increase in money terms simply to get back to the level of pay that they enjoyed when the Government came into office?

Mr. Dennis Skinner: The Government are bribing the Tory judges.

Mr. Fowler: The difference between the position of the Health Service and that, for example, within the Civil Service is that although civil servants generally will receive an average increase of 5·9 per cent., it will be held within a 4 per cent. pay limit. In other words, the increase is being financed by a reduction in the number of staff in the Civil Service. That is not the position in the National Health Service, and I should not have thought that the hon. Gentleman would want to argue that it should be.

Mr. R. A. McCrindle: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has admitted that any industrial action is likely to have an effect on patients. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the all-out action suggested in a certain trade union quarter could not fail to have a catastrophic effect on patient care? In those circumstances, does he not agree that, even in a democracy, there is a limit beyond which industrial action should not be taken?

Mr. Fowler: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. When the right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals) was dealing with a similar problem in 1979, he said:

I believe that we should condemn industrial action that does damage to the Health Service, whether it comes from doctors, nurses or anyone else who works in the Service."—[Official Report, 1 February 1979; Vol 961, c. 1684.]
I hope that that is still the Opposition's position.

Mr. Doug Hoyle: Does the Secretary of State realise that his interference in wage bargaining is the cause of the industrial action? Will he stop it? Does he realise that offering Health Service workers 6 per cent. means cutting their standard of living by 6 per cent. on top of a similar cut last year? Does he accept that no other public sector workers are being treated in this way? Does he realise that many professional and technical workers are being offered 4 per cent., and that a substantial number of them are being offered nothing?

Mr. Fowler: As I have said, unlike any other part of the public or private sectors, employment opportunities in the Health Service are rapidly increasing. I should have thought that Opposition Members would applaud that. It is an important point. A choice must be made. There are no easy options, but I believe that the right choice has been made.

Mr. Mike Thomas: Is the Secretary of State aware that many Health Service workers do not want to take industrial action but find their position substantially undermined by the grotesque unfairness of the Government's policy? How can it be right that those with muscle, such as water workers, power workers and miners should be paid out by the Government when those who are in low-paid NHS jobs have the knife turned on them by the Government? The quite gratuitous statement that has just been made is clearly designed to do that. Does not the present position clearly prove the case for a fair incomes policy, and is not the Government's position as bankrupt as that of the official Opposition?

Mr. Fowler: I would be much more impressed by the hon. Gentleman's arguments for a fair incomes policy if I could find a case that the hon. Gentleman was not prepared to support. However, he comes forward on every case and always makes that point. I hope that the hon. Gentleman understands that in making a 6·4 per cent. offer we accept that those who rightly do not take strike action should have that factor recognised by the Government. That is what we have sought to do.

Sir Peter Emery: Does my right hon. Friend accept that although nobody can, or should, restrict a person from withdrawing his labour, that does not give that person the right to picket and thereby to limit the service to those in hospital? If so, will he do everything in his power to ensure that in the event of a strike the vast pool of voluntary workers can be used to help patients and to ensure that no one suffers as a result of a strike?

Mr. Fowler: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right and that our first concern must be patient care.

Mr. Flannery: It is not the Secretary of State's first concern.

Mr. Fowler: In December 1979, we issued a circular setting out the position and role that could be played by volunteers. We have drawn the attention of authorities to that circular.

Mr. Roland Moyle: Is the Secretary of State aware that any expansion in employment in the


NHS is based on his principle of coolie labour? How can he say that his first concern is the safety of patients, when he is deliberately and cynically exploiting the unwillingness of Health Service employees to take action against their patients, and is holding them down and offering them a 4 per cent. increase, although he knows—given the increases that have prevailed in the rest of the public sector—that it must be an incitement to industrial action?

Mr. Fowler: I do not accept that. The right hon. Gentleman is not only a former health Minister but is also sponsored by the National Union of Public Employees and therefore also has that interest. I do not accept what the right hon. Gentleman said, for the reasons that I have stated.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Is the Secretary of State aware that the region hardest hit by his decision about Health Service workers is Northern Ireland? In the past three years rents have doubled. In addition, energy costs are double and the cost of living and of transport is almost double that found in other parts of the United Kingdom. Has the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland made any representations on behalf of those Health Service workers? I lay it on the line that I do not believe that the dedication of those in the Health Service should be exploited to keep their wages down.

Mr. Fowler: No one is exploiting anyone. Of course, I have discussed the matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call four more hon. Members from each side, which will be a very good run on the statement.

Mr. Laurie Pavitt: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that some years ago there was a confrontation with under-paid doctors, and that they gave their resignations in bulk to the British Medical Association, threatening to withdraw their services? Has he made any contingency plans? If the nurses use a similar ploy and the right hon. Gentleman then has to employ them as agency nurses, it would cost a tremendous amount of money and would cause great disruption, although it would not represent industrial action. What is the right hon. Gentleman doing about the 7,419 qualified nurses on the dole?

Mr. Fowler: I have not made contingency plans for that possibility, for the good reason that the Royal College of Nursing is now balloting on the proposition that we put forward. I very much hope that the nurses will accept the 6·4 per cent. average that has been offered.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Although I share my right hon. Friend's dismay and concern about industrial action in the Health Service, was not the Conservative Party—prior to the general election—committed to declaring certain sections of our industrial work force special cases? We have honoured our commitments to the Armed Forces and to the police, but does not my right hon. Friend accept that in the eyes of many of the public the offer made to the nurses is inadequate? Will he not make an offer to the nurses, in particular, that reflects the tremendous part that they play in the health of the people of Britain through the dedicated service that they give?

Mr. Fowler: I do not agree with my hon. Friend about the offer that is being made. Unlike previous Governments, this Government are trying to work out a new permanent arrangement for nurses and midwives for the very reasons that my hon. Friend put forward. The Government are not responsible for the delay. I am anxious and determined that the new arrangement should come into being by the next pay round. In that sense, we are fulfilling the pledge that we made.

Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe: Does not the Secretary of State realise that he is completely out of touch with public opinion? There is wholesale and widespread public support for the Health Service workers and the nurses. The right hon. Gentleman accused us of not fully understanding the figures. However, the figures are clear. The facts are incontrovertible. Last year the nurses and lower-paid Health Service workers patriotically accepted 6 per cent. as against an 11 per cent. average wage increase. If that is added to this year's figures of 4 per cent. and 6·4 per cent., with inflation averaging 13 per cent. it is obvious, from a rapid calculation, that the nurses and lower-paid Health Service workers will be 13 per cent. worse off this year in real terms. Will the Minister note the mean and niggardly stance of the Government? The public would be willing to pay additional money. I appealed to the Prime Minister on 6 May to meet the Health Service unions. Sooner or later both the Minister and the Prime Minister will have to meet them to make an improved offer and secure a satisfactory solution to the problem

Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman is ignoring the fact that the Government have already made new money available, that we have brought up the offer to £320 million and that already we are seeking to make progress on a new long-term system for nurses' pay which will have implications throughout the National Health Service.

Mrs. Sheila Faith: While we all have sympathy with the employees in the Health Service, should they not take into account that they have job security? My right hon. Friend has already said that more people are employed in the Health Service than ever before. Should they not also remember that they have pension rights and that these benefits are not shared by many people who work in the private sector?

Mr. Pavitt: And the hon. Lady is a feminist.

Mr. Fowler: The National Health Service is the largest employer in the country. As my hon. Friend rightly says, employment in the Health Service has been increasing over the last three years, at a time when, both in the public and the private sector, the complete opposite has been taking place.

Mr. Allen McKay: Does the Minister agree that the new system he talked about, irrespective of how fast the progress towards it, is a long way off? We are talking about money on the table now. Does he agree that his Government are for the first time taxing the sick and the injured, and that that money should go back to the National Health Service? Has he noticed the support that is growing for the Health Service from the miners, the seamen, the water workers and the power workers? Does it not strike a chord in his memory that that could overrun what the Government are about? Does he accept that, if


he is so sure that he is right, he should take the matter to arbitration, as happens at all times in a free collective bargaining system such as he supports?

Mr. Fowler: I have already talked about arbitration. In regard to the extension of the strike into other areas, many people in the Health Service would be dismayed if that were to take place. Clearly I would not only deplore that but would counsel against it. On the new permanent arrangement, we are not talking about an arrangement that is to be instituted in the late 1980s or anything like that. We want to have a new arrangement in place by the next pay round. As I have said, the delay that has been caused here is in no part the fault of the Government. We are most anxious to make progress on it.

Dr. Brian Mawhinney: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House whether patients' legal rights might be infringed if they are prevented, by the decision of non-medically-qualified NHS staff, from receiving medical treatment?

Mr. Fowler: I shall look into that. Clearly, we very much hope that there will be no instance of that kind. No doubt it would be the solid wish of all the public that there should be no intervention of that kind by non-medically qualified staff.

Mr. Flannery: Does the Minister realise that the nurses and hospital workers are desperate and that he has driven them to that position by his niggardliness? Is it not the most appalling blackmail to hold over people's heads a miserable pittance for their work and destroy their human dignity, and then accuse them before the general public, when they say they are desperate and have to take action, of wishing to hurt patients in hospital whom they have struggled for a long time to look after? Will the Minister do something, even at this late stage, to give them dignity and a fair standard of living, instead of pretending that they, and not he, are the criminals who are hurting the patients in hospitals?

Mr. Fowler: I should point out to the hon. Gentleman that over the last three years nurses and midwives have had on average a 60 per cent. increase in their earnings. The pay bill has risen by 82 per cent.

Mr. Pavitt: Eighteen per cent. less.

Mr. Fowler: The 60 per cent. average is what we are talking about. That answers the point that the hon. Gentleman has made.

Mr. Ralph Howell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the overall manpower of the National Health Service has increased by more than 100 per cent. since 1960, and that there are now more ancillary workers than there were in the complete work force of the National Health Service in 1960? At the same time the number of beds has fallen by 100,000. Is my right hon. Friend of the same opinion as me that the National Health Service is grossly overmanned?

Mr. Fowler: No, I am not of that opinion. Clearly I want, as any Minister of Health would want, a National Health Service run at maximum efficiency. That is the point. It is fair for me to point out that in what has been the worst recession the world has known since the end of the war, we have put new real resources into the Health Service. One of the effects of that has been that more people have been employed and patient services have been improved.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Will the Secretary of State tell us simply why Health Service workers should believe him when he says that he wants to create some kind of machinery for comparability when it was his Government who destroyed the Clegg commission the minute they came to office? If he is so certain of the excellence of his case and the percentages that he has quoted to the House for wage increases, why does he not immediately refer the whole question to ACAS?

Mr. Fowler: I have already made it clear that we cannot subcontract to arbitration the Government's decision upon what the nation can afford. In regard to the new permanent arrangement, I do not believe that there is any doubt about that for anyone who has come to the meetings on the staff side and to whom I have put the position. We are seeking to establish something infinitely more important than any-thing that Clegg had. I would again at this stage urge that we should make all progress in trying to devise such a scheme.

Prime Minister's Questions

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, which I do not believe is trivial.
I apologise to any Northern Ireland Members, who may be avid devolutionists, for holding them back. May I put this to you, Mr. Speaker? Under Standing Order No. 8 you are entitled not to call another Prime Minister's question but to let Prime Minister's questions run on. May I put it to you also that it used to be the case in the 1960s that Prime Ministers would select substantial questions on which they wished to make a statement and take them at the end of Question Time? For some reason that practice has been discontinued.
In the case of the Falkland Islands, would it not be right for the Prime Minister, who understandably wants to make a substantial statement, to do so at the end of questions, so that Members would have their only opportunity in the next 10 days, possibly, to scrutinise the Executive's action? I do not think this is purely a mechanical point. It is a question of scrutiny of a momentous national issue. May I ask you to reflect on this, Mr. Speaker, and possibly give a ruling on Tuesday week or when we come back?

Mr. Speaker: I am always willing to reflect on a point of order. Normally I am only too anxious to reflect on a point of order, but I do not want to raise false hopes for the hon. Gentleman because many things have changed since the 1960s. In those days Prime Ministers were heard in silence. We know that there have been many changes. I shall, of course, look at the matter that the hon. Gentleman has raised.

British Rail

Mr. Frank Dobson: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the impending lockout on British Railways.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition leas explained the nature of the impending dispute between the three railway unions and the management of British Rail. My right hon. Friend has pointed out to the Leader of the House that the Government are largely responsible for the intransigent attitude of the railways management. The Leader of the House has pointed out that he does not intend to find Government time to debate the matter. I believe that the importance of the pending dispute must be acknowledged by the House. I believe that hon. Members should debate it soon. There is a clear possibility that the railway unions will shortly start, justifiably, limited and graduated industrial action and that the British Rail management will respond by an immediate national lockout.
If a lockout takes place, it is highly unlikely that the railway system that exists at the beginning of the lockout will exist at the end of the lockout. That would severely affect not only the 250,000 people who find a living on the railways but also the millions of people who travel on them and the millions who would be severely affected by the transfer of heavy goods from the railways to the roads.
The reason why a debate is urgent is that there will be no opportunity for hon. Members to discuss the matter between now and our return on 8 June. With the British Rail management trying to bring forward some of the meetings with the unions next week, it is possible that both parties will be committed to outright dispute by the tune we return. If that is right, I rely on the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) who, on the subject of the Falkland Islands, pointed out how little was needed to deter and how much to remedy. It would be wise if the opportunity was given to the House to deter the Government and British Rail management from their precipitous course and so avoid having to remedy a desperate situation on the railways.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman gave me notice before 12 noon that he would seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely
the impending lockout on British Railways".
I want first to express my gratitude to the hon. Gentleman for the courteous manner in which he has presented his argument to me. As the hon. Gentleman and the House are aware, I have received four applications this week, which shows the anxiety over this matter. I am fully aware of that. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he has presented his case. None the less, as the House knows, under Standing Order No. 9 I am directed to take into account the several factors set out in the order but to give no reasons for my decision. I have to rule that the hon. Gentleman's submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order and therefore I cannot submit his application to the House.

Orders of the Day — Northern Ireland Bill

Considered in Committee

[Mr. BERNARD WEATHERILL in the Chair]

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: On a point of order, Mr. Weatherill. I wish to raise a point of order of which I have given you prior notice. I hope that I may put it to you in ample terms sufficient for the significance of it to be understood generally. I believe that it is one of constitutional importance not merely for the proceedings in this House but also for the relationship between the Executive and this House.
My submission to you, Sir, is that we cannot proceed on this Bill in Committee unless and until the House passes the appropriate and necessary financial resolution to enable us to do so. There took place on 10 May a brief debate upon the financial resolution which was moved by the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Patten). In the intervening fortnight, it has been possible to consider what the Minister said on that occasion and to examine the wider implications of the financial resolution upon which this debate purports to proceed.
I think it would be common ground that we cannot proceed in Comittee upon a Bill that involves expenditure but has not been covered by a money resolution moved on behalf of the Crown by a Minister and passed by the House. On the face of the financial resolution, which was passed on 10 May, it appeared that only one specific provision had been made in that way in respect of this Bill. The operative words in that resolution which, I think, Mr. Weatherill, you will have in front of you, as I have in front of me, are that
it is expedient to authorise any payments out of or into the Consolidated Fund which are attributable to section 4(2) of the last-mentioned Act
that was a reference to the Northern Ireland Assembly Act 1973—
to subsequent elections of members of the Assembly
One, and one only, of the causes contained in the Bill before the Committee of public expenditure is met by the terms of that financial resolution. We understand—we are indebted to the hon. Member for Oxford for that understanding—that the reason why this specific item is covered in this way is that the financial resolution pertinent to the Northern Ireland Assembly Act 1973, as it became, covered only the cost of the election of one assembly and not of subsequent assemblies, it having been decided at that time to detach the election of the assembly from the general constitutional provisions in what became the Northern Ireland Constitution Act of 1973. Consequently, certain expenses were in advance taken upon chance, so to speak, directly by the United Kingdom, particularly the holding of that one first election for which action had to be taken before the provision could be made in the 1973 Bill. We are therefore perfectly clear why that item is covered.
I do not think, however, that it can be disputed that the Bill now before us will involve other public expenditure. I am at the moment using that deliberately relatively wide term "public expenditure". In doing so, I might perhaps

be permitted, referring back to the debate of 10 May, to repeat my regret about the inadequacy of the financial memorandum available to us at the time. According to "Erskine May", the financial memorandum should set out the total amount of public money that would be involved. The term is quite general. It involves money from any public sources whatever. Hon. Members were denied that full information, although a certain amount of it has transpired in the meantime in response to questions that have been put down. I do not, however, think that it can be disputed that this Bill will result in the incurring of public expenditure upon objects that were not contemplated by the 1973 Act.
The Assembly which would be set up under the Bill has different functions in part, and initially will have wholly different functions, from the Assembly that was created by the 1973 Act. It must follow that public expenditure will be incurred as a result of the Bill which could not be incurred and has not been incurred as a result of the 1973 Act.
You might, Mr. Weatherill, as I did, have concluded from that that there was a direct step in reasoning whereby one was entitled to say that there should be a financial resolution which would specifically cover those new and additional forms of public expenditure. Unfortunately, it involves me having to detain you and the Committee a little longer than would otherwise be necessary. There are two intervening stages in the argument that it is necessary to submit, because they are vital to the proposition which I am putting.
The money resolution, of course, provides for payments out of the Consolidated Fund. There is no doubt that in providing for such payments we are dealing wih the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom. Much of the expenditure, if not all, involved under the new Bill, except that specifically dealt with by the financial resolution passed on 10 May, will in the first place be met out of the Consolidated Fund of Northern Ireland. It would be a mere quibble—I am sure that you, Mr. Weatherill, will already have arrived at that conclusion—simply to say that because that expenditure is dealt with by a different Consolidated Fund from that which the House directly controls the submission that I make to you does not arise. You will have perceived that is so on two grounds.
Section 16 of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 contains the words:
The Secretary of State may from time to time".
I notice an eager assent, Mr. Weatherill, on your part when I pronounce those words. I do not know whether, from that, I can anticipate that any part of any provisional conclusions or views that you may have arrived at is connected with that wording. Simply noting that passing phenomenon, I complete the quotation:
The Secretary of State may from time to time pay out of moneys provided by Parliament into the Consolidated Fund of Northern Ireland such sums by way of grant as he may with the consent of the Treasury determine".
There is in the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973—which is still on the statute book and still in operation; it is not a section which has been suspended by the Northern Ireland Act 1974—a power on the part of the Secretary of State to make payments out of the United Kingdom Consolidated Fund into that of Northern Ireland. The 1973 Act set up a new constitution for Northern Ireland to replace that which was so ill-advisedly,


unadvisedly and hastily abolished in 1972, and naturally made that provision. It is contained in section 16 of the 1973 Act, which I have just read.
There is no doubt that payments for the purposes of the 1973 Act out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom into that of Northern Ireland are duly authorised by that Act. That legislation was in accordance with, and under the aegis of, the financial resolution of that time which preceded the Committee debate on the 1973 Bill.
4.45 pm
The new Bill creates in part, and initially wholly, new constitutional arrangements which do not exist and have not existed for Northern Ireland. It must involve additional payments and payments for different purposes out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom into that of Northern Ireland. There is, so far as I can see, only one escape from that conclusion, though I am not sure that that escape is even theoretically open to the Secretary of State. It would, of course, be theoretically possible for the Secretary of State to say after the Bill had received Royal Assent—if such an unfortunate thing should happen—"I am not going to make any payments out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom into that of Northern Ireland for the purposes of the Act. I have looked at section 16. It says 'may'. That is my decision."
I do not believe that the Secretary of State will say any such thing, for two reasons. It would be not merely uncharacteristically unreasonable of the right hon. Gentleman, but inconceivable for any Department of State to enact a new regime and not be prepared to finance that regime. A second reason for the impossibility of any such negative action on the part of the Secretary of State is that there are no other funds under this dispensation that could be made available to meet that expenditure. When there has been functioning in Northern Ireland a Parliament with taxing powers, the payments made out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom into that of Northern Ireland, have been in the way of supplements to the total revenues and for the total expenditure incurred in Northern Ireland. There was a discretionary element governing other sources which flowed into the Consolidated Fund of Northern Ireland. Since there were certain taxes and impositions which were within the control of the Parliament of Northern Ireland, it was possible for the Government in the United Kingdom to say to the Government and Parliament of Northern Ireland "If you want that extra expenditure, you pay for it. There is no extra grant going out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom." That is not the position, nor will it be in the foreseeable future.
There is no tap that can be turned on to supply money for new public purposes in Northern Ireland other than the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom. That is not merely a practical fact; it is an indisputable fact. There is no doubt that, as a result of this legislation, there will have to be paid out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom into that of Northern Ireland sums for purposes which were not envisaged by the 1973 Act.
That is the basis upon which I ground my contention that the money resolution was insufficient to enable the Committee to proceed with the consideration of the Bill. I have taken a proposition into account, not merely to dismiss it myself but because I believe that the whole Committee will be disposed to treat it critically. There is a proposition that the words

The Secretary of State may from time to time pay out of moneys provided by Parliament into the Consolidated Fund of Northern Ireland such sums by way of grant as he may with the consent of the Treasury determine
are perfectly general. I have heard it suggested—I put it no more precisely than that—that those words are to be regarded as a completely open permission for such sums to be paid, not for the purposes envisaged in the 1973 Act but for different purposes.
I repudiate that proposition, both on textual grounds and, more solidly, on the grounds of reasonableness and of the whole relationship between the House and the Executive. If the Committee examines the terminology of the money resolution on which section 16 of the 1973 Act is founded it will find that it was prefaced by the words
for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make new provision for the government of Northern Ireland.
I do not believe, and I must admit that after several endeavours to do so I have failed to believe, that those words are meaningless. I cannot believe that when the House resolved that it was expedient to make financial provision for the purposes of the 1973 Act it meant something different—that for the purposes of giving the Secretary of State a blank cheque in perpetuity it was expedient that this and that should happen.
I cannot accept that proposition, and I do not believe that it can be acceptable. Despite the words "from time to time"—which were necessary because, if the 1973 Act was to continue, the grants had to be made not just in one dollop, but from time to time as necessary—"from time to time" was not a promise of diuturnity, still less of perpetuity; it was merely saying to the Secretary of State, "You do not have to make the grant once a year or all at one time, you can make grants as and when you consider it to be necessary", but all that was controlled and limited by the purpose for which that decision was taken, not merely in the terms of the financial resolution of 1973, but in the necessity of the case.
If you, Mr. Weatherill, should rule that section 16 of the 1973 Act adequately covers all the new expenditure, not contemplated in that Act, which would be incurred under the Bill you should consider what consequences would follow. It will alter the relationship between the Government and the House and it will mean that a power given to Ministers to spend for one purpose is thereafter deemed to enable them to incur expenditure for different purposes that were not contemplated at the time when the original power was given.
I take an example from the previous office of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I can imagine circumstances where the Secretary of State for Employment has been given power to incur public expenditure, duly authorised by a money resolution and consequent legislation. I do not believe that the proposition can be seriously advanced that the Secretary of State is thereby entitled to incur public expenditure on other matters pertaining to the Department of Employment, which are not lawful until new legislation affecting the Department and giving it new powers has been passed, and that the old powers can just be carried on.
In this case, it is a new charter, a new dispensation, as between the Government and the House on the control of public expenditure. We shall be told that once we have given power to a Minister to spend public money for certain purposes that can be, so to speak, spread forward over any further legislation and any new purposes that may


subsequently be brought forward. I do not believe that that can be the contention and it is for that reason that I have taken the time of the Committee and engaged your attention, Mr. Weatherill—and I apologise for having done so—in putting forward my submission.
We are clearly considering something that does not begin and end with Northern Ireland or the Bill. It means that the Government have only to get a clause like section 16 of the 1973 Act through the House in the form of a money resolution and into the charging provision of the legislation and the House will have lost the control which it has hitherto exercised over the expenditure of Governments.
There is a converse to this and there is a symmetry between control of the House over expenditure and the exclusive responsibility of Ministers for public expenditure. It is not a mere antiquated form whereby Ministers, and no others, can come to the Dispatch Box and demand from the House the facility, the right, to spend public money and to pay moneys out of the Consolidated Fund. It is only those Ministers whom we in the Chamber can call to account.
The rights and financial privileges of Ministers and the powers of the House are symmetrical and coequal. I warn hon. Members that if the interpretation which would imply that section 16 of the 1973 Act covers new and uncontemplated expenditure that will be incurred under the Bill is allowed to stand they will have established a very serious precedent for the future and they had better look sharply about themselves when they are presented in future with a money resolution that says "For the purposes of any Act in the present Session to do this particular thing, it is expedient that money be paid out of the Consolidated Fund" and realise that those preparatory words, which they thought were limitations, will be disregarded and they will be told: "Never mind about the preamble, all that you have to attend to is the fact that the Government have been given the power to spend money".
I do not believe that you, Mr. Weatherill, above all as Chairman of Ways and Means and the supreme guardian—more than Mr. Speaker himself—of the financial privileges and rights of the House, will allow to stand a proposition that is so monstrous in its effects.
Therefore, I submit the proposition that it is not proper and not in accordance with procedure for the House to proceed to consider the Bill in Committee until a new financial resolution authorising payments out of the Consolidated Fund for the purposes of the Bill, which are different from, additional to and distinct from those in the 1973 Act, has been presented to the House and passed by the House.

5 pm

Sir John Biggs-Davison: Further to that point of order, Mr. Weatherill. Although your time and that of the Committee is precious, I do not believe that the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) had any cause to apologise for bringing this serious constitutional matter to the notice of the Committee. He brought it to the notice of the House after the Second Reading debate. The hour was late and the House was weary after that debate. I fear that few hon. Members were in the House and not a great deal of attention was paid to

what the right hon. Gentleman was then saying. Perhaps that was a pity because we might have been able to start our proceedings in better order today.
I do not know what a Minister of the Crown will have to say about this. The right hon. Gentleman gave you notice of this point of order, Mr. Weatherill. I am sure that you will have some words to address to the Committee, but if we are to be told that the money resolution accompanying the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 covers the expenditure for the Assembly provided for in the Bill, I must say to you, Mr. Weatherill, and to the Committee that the Assembly provided for in the Bill is not the Northern Ireland Assembly of 1973. It is different from that Assembly; its functions are different. It is an entirely different animal, or at least it will remain a different animal until direct rule is suspended if ever this rolling devolution gets to that point.
The money resolution of 1973 covered legislation for the new constitution that was brought in by the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973. That Act is different from the Bill before us today. The Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 defines powers to be devolved to a Northern Ireland Executive and to a Northern Ireland Assembly. Under the Bill before us, the position is different. The burden of progress—if I can use that word in this context—falls in larger measure on the Assembly. It is not so much a case of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State devolving powers, as of the Assembly, when it is elected, submitting its proposals for the resumption or assumption of devolved government in Northern Ireland. It will then be for the House and the other place to approve the proposals that may be presented by the Secretary of State.
The Assembly provided for in the Bill is something of a hybrid. It is as much in the nature of a constitutional convention as of an Assembly as we understand "Assembly" from the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973.
You will remember, Mr. Weatherill, that the Northern Ireland constitutional convention was set up in 1974 to enable the people of Northern Ireland, through their elected representatives, to put forward their own proposals for the future Government and constitution of Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland Assembly that we are considering today would have similar duties to that Northern Ireland constitutional convention.
With the convention of 1973–74, it was left to the Secretary of State of the time to decide how to achieve a power-sharing Executive. It fell to the Secretary of State to do that. In this Bill, as clearly explained in the White Paper, the Government will institute any reasonable scheme of administration that has the support of a substantial majority of the Assembly and is acceptable to both sides of the community.
In effect, this is a constitution-making body. In effect, it is a constitutional convention—a second constitutional convention. In any case, even if you do not accept what I have said in that regard, Mr. Weatherill, it is clear that the Assembly provided for in the Bill is entirely different from the former Northern Ireland Assembly and should be covered by its own financial resolution. In the absence of a satisfactory financial resolution, I submit, with great respect, that we should not proceed further in Committee today and that you, as Chairman of Ways and Means,


should consider the matter, as I am sure that you have. The upshot should be that you should report the matter to the House for proper action.

Mr. James Molyneaux: Further to that point of order, Mr. Weatherill. I support the pleas by my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and by the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison). You will remember, Mr. Weatherill, that in the short debate on the money resolution on 10 May, the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) pointed out that assemblies that do nothing still manage to spend money. In other cases, they continue to have money spent on them even though they are not in being.
The hon. Gentleman's observation inspired me to make some inquiries, the most revealing of which produced from the Secretary of State in a written answer on 20 May the startling information that, although the Northern Ireland Assembly established by the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 has not met since 1974, it has continued to cost the taxpayer, through one of the funds mentioned by my right hon. Friend, well over £100,000 a year. The total for the past seven years is well over £1 million. It might be helpful to you, Mr. Weatherill, and to the Committee if I quote the figures because they are relevant to the discussions in which we are engaged. The written answer states:


The total costs during each financial year were as follows:


Year
Cost£


1975–76
150,200


1976–77
221,800


1977–78
115,900


1978–79
109,400


1979–80
151,900


1980–81
123,900


1981–82
138,000


—[Official Report, 20 May 1982; Vol. 24, c. 183.]


You and the Members of the Committee will have noticed, Mr. Weatherill, that in 1976–77 the expenditure increased by 25 per cent. which was two years after that ill-fated Assembly ceased its operations.
The figures show what can be wasted by an Assembly when it is not sitting and, for that matter, not even in existence except on paper or in statutory rules printed in italics declaring that weighty measures were being introduced under the Northern Ireland Act 1974. The hon. Member for Hendon, North was right to be alarmed at the thought that an Assembly sitting, but doing nothing, could spend another £2 million a year.
That brings me to the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South in the debate on the money resolution. It was not clear to me and it may not have been clear to the House on 10 May whether the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Patten), meant that £2 million to be an annual figure, an estimated figure, or a once-for-all figure. He reluctantly admitted that the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund would be impoverished. That was the word used by the hon. Member for Hendon, North. We were not quite clear about that matter. The phrase in the money resolution to which my right hon. Friend has drawn attention—
to make new provision for the resumption of legislative and executive functions by the Northern Ireland Assembly
requires a great deal of clarification to say the least. The 1973 Act, as the hon. Member for Epping Forest said,

provided for a structure which was at least clearly defined. People may not have liked the look of it, but at least they knew what it consisted of. Whatever its many faults, its powers were set out clearly. There was no room for doubt about the scope and jurisdiction with regard to its legislative and executive functions.
If the Bill before us had been designed to resume those functions—the functions given to the 1973 constitution and the Assembly created thereby—but excluding the undesirable features of the 1973 Act, the money resolution on 10 May would have been adequate.
Even if we ignore the wilder experiments in the Bill, the clauses most closely related to the money resolution are so different in character from what went before that they could not remotely be likened to what was described as the resumption of former activities.
A further serious complication arises from the split timing of the proposal. It is doubtful whether the money resolution covers at the same time, or at a stroke, the two stages. The initial stage is when an Assembly is elected and meets to perform duties which were not provided for in the 1973 Act, if it ever gets round to that. One example is the much-inflated power of scrutiny. The second element involves the various improbable events in the Assembly after it is elected, such as that elegantly referred to by the Secretary of State as "cobbling together" a 70 per cent. majority so that the Assembly might proceed to certain other activities involving legislative functions,, of a sort, and executive functions, of a sort.
The money resolution cannot cover both those spheres. It may attempt to provide the financial wherewithal to perform one, but it cannot do both because that would be a contradiction. On 10 May the Minister was unable to convince us that such matters had been provided for adequately in the money resolution. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South and the hon. Member for Epping Forest, I believe strongly that the Committee cannot and should not proceed without more adequate financial provision.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): It may be convenient for me to give my assessment before we take the matter further.
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) for giving me notice of his submission. He and the Committee will know that I have given it careful consideration.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

The Chairman: I am dealing with a point of order. I shall take further points of order later. This is an important matter.
The money resolution for the Bill, agreed to by the House on 10 May, covers the cost of the next and subsequent Assembly elections and by-elections. It is necessary because their cost, unlike the other charges under the Bill, is a charge upon the United Kingdom Consolidated Fund. All other charges under the Bill will be met out of the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund, which is a separate fund from the United Kingdom fund.
Payments out of the Northern Ireland fund do not require a money resolution since the Northern Ireland fund has certain independent sources of revenue. The Government of the United Kingdom may, as the right hon.


Gentleman said, at any time contribute to the Northern Ireland fund by way of grants out of moneys provided by Parliament, but there is no obligation, either under existing legislation or under the Bill, upon the United Kingdom Government to make increased payments into the Northern Ireland fund to help meet the expenditure arising out of the Bill.
If, however, the United Kingdom Government should decide to make grants to the Northern Ireland fund to help meet this expenditure, they have authority to do so under section 16 of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973. Subsection (1) of that Act states:
The Secretary of State may from time to time pay out of moneys provided by Parliament into the Consolidated Fund of Northern Ireland such sums by way of grant as he may with the consent of the Treasury determine and may, in connection with any such payment, impose such conditions as he may with the like consent determine.
That authority, as the Committee will observe, is unrestricted as to the amount of money to be paid in and as to any time limit on such payments. As from 1973 that authority has been a continuing authority and part of United Kingdom law.
5.15 pm
When the Northern Ireland Constitution Act was before the House in the form of a Bill in 1973 the provisions of section 16 were covered by a money resolution, which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, agreed to by the House on 24 May 1973. I apologise for quoting the money resolution, but it is important. It states:
for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make new provision for the government of Northern Ireland, it is expedient to authorise payments out of moneys provided by Parliament and payments out of or into the Consolidated Fund.
The opening words of that resolution recite the long title of the Bill for the purposes of identification. They are not intended to restrict, and have never been construed as restricting, the purposes for which the moneys authorised may be spent.
The effective part of the money resolution starts with the words "it is expedient". That is standard practice for each money resolution submitted to the House. It will be noted that in the effective part of the resolution no limit on the amount of money nor on the time within which it might be paid was imposed. In those respects it reflects the provisons of section 16 of the 1973 Act which I have already cited.
Finally, I shall answer a specific point asked by the right hon. Member and others. Control over any such payments will of course be retained by the House of Commons in so far as they will have to be included in the Estimates which will need to be submitted to the House and agreed by it.
For those reasons I am satisfied that it is proper for us to proceed with the Bill.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Weatherill. I am grateful to you for describing the statement that you have just made as your assessment. I am sure that you will appreciate the great importance to the House—and not merely in this context—of the matters which this question has brought to our consideration. With great respect—I am grateful to you—I must say that all the points included in your assessment were not entirely unfamiliar to me when I made my submission. I do,

however, believe that what you, Mr. Weatherill, have said will not have diminished but will have increased any anxiety felt by the Committee.
Perhaps I might be permitted to explain the reasons for that anxiety. You, Mr. Weatherill, explained, indubitably correctly, that expenditure in Northern Ireland flows directly out of the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund into which money flows from time to time from the United Kingdom Consolidated Fund. You referred to independent sources available for the replenishment of the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund. We are confronted with circumstances in which those other sources cannot be varied by anything which is not within the control of the House. There is no taxing power in Northern Ireland, nor will there be in the new Assembly, whereby the flow of money into the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund can be varied or increased.
You stated, Mr. Weatherill, and obviously correctly, that the payments made under section 16 of the 1973 Act by the Secretary of State are voluntary payments. They are "may" payments and not "shall" payments. You said that they were unrestricted, but you were careful to say that they were unrestricted in amount and time. Of course they are unrestricted in amount, because the restrictions in amount are imposed by other procedures of this House. Of course they are unrestricted in time, so long as the purposes of the 1973 Act are being fulfilled. It would be impossible, unless that were a terminable Act, to put a terminus of time upon those payments out of the Consolidated Fund Act. What you did not say, Mr. Weatherill, was that they were unrestricted in respect of purpose. With great respect, unless they were unrestricted in respect of purpose, the contention would appear to stand that a specific money resolution is required.
It is quite true that the terminology of section 16 is a continuing terminology, but so it is bound to be in the drafting of any Act which is intended to continue. But surely, Mr. Weatherill, the proposition cannot be intended that by authorising in one context payments out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom we are held to have authorised payments out of the United Kingdom Consolidated Fund for other purposes.
Perhaps the most worrying aspect of this was the point you touched on when you said that the terminology of the money resolution "for the purposes of etc. was purely for the purposes of identification. I do not know whether other members of the Committee are as alarmed as I am to hear that. I admit that I had not realised that when we passed a money resolution, starting with the words "for the purposes of a Bill which has just had a Second Reading, we did not mean that at all. I had not realised that we were proceeding immediately to giving an unlimited power of expenditure, unless it was otherwise limited in the financial resolution, to the Secretary of State.
Perhaps I was not attending to these matters in 1973 quite as continuously as I am today, although I was attending to them. Perhaps no other hon. Member representing a seat in the rest of the United Kingdom was in those days attending to them more carefully. I mean no disrespect to the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) and other hon. Members. However, I cannot recall directing my mind to the terminology of the money resolution which immediately followed the Second Reading of the Northern Ireland Constitution Bill in 1973.
Had my attention been so directed, I confess that I would have been astonished and alarmed if I had been told


then what you, Mr. Weatherill, have been advised and have advised the Committee now—that by that financial resolution and the provision in the 1973 Act which enacted it, we were giving a permanent power to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to pay out of the Consolidated Fund sums not merely unlimited in amount or unlimited in time, but unlimited in purpose, and that they would be applicable to new purposes, not merely not envisaged by the 1973 Act but actually incompatible with that Act, because the purposes envisaged in this Bill are a consequence of the suspension of the 1973 Act. So it must follow that they are different purposes from those which we contemplated in 1973.
This is a matter of great seriousness. Clearly it places an interpretation which, so far as I am advised, has not been placed before on the money resolutions passed by the House and upon the consequences of those resolutions.
If I may say so, Mr. Weatherill, I was encouraged by the appearance during your assessment of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House, and correspondingly abashed to observe his subsequent departure, because we have a difficulty. It is not a difficulty which has been created by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. It is evident from your assessment that this matter goes much wider than his responsibilities, and that the difficulty in which the Committee finds itself informed that in the past without apparently being aware of it—although perhaps hon. Members will say that they knew it all the time—we have given a carte blanche for expenditure out of the Consolidated Fund of a voluntary character by way of grant for purposes not envisaged nine years earlier. This is something that the House as a whole has to handle. A mere Committee considering this Bill is not in a position to handle it. Clearly I can speak only for myself, but I feel that the statement that you made to the Committee has, in a sense, by its very precision and clarity, underlined and intensified our difficulties.
Mr. Weatherill, I am sure that your eyes, too, have been on the clock, and I am therefore sorry that at the outset of our proceedings we have already spent nearly an hour in considering this proposition. However, I am sure that you will also accept that a point of order of this character, and of a constitutional character of this kind, albeit at the beginning of the Committee stage of a Bill, is a matter of serious import.
I recall that one of your predecessors in the Chair, now deservedly ennobled, deserved well of the House. At the commencement of the Committee proceedings on the European Communities Bill 1972, Wing Commander Grant-Ferris, as he then was, was sufficiently patient with the constitutional problems which confronted the Committee to remain in the Chair to receive the submissions of hon. Members throughout the night. It was a function for which the House of Commons, both at that time and subsequently, has always been grateful to your predecessor in the Chair. Perhaps events of recent weeks have made us even more lively in our recognition of our debt to him.
I am venturing to say that we face a real and deep constitutional impasse, which it is difficult for this Committee, as a Committee, to resolve, and which only the House, as a House, it appears to me, can resolve. I do not know whether the point of view that I am expressing is one that commends itself to other hon. Members. I hope that there may be means whereby we can obtain the assistance that we need. I cannot think that it would be

right for the Committee to proceed, leaving on the record the statement upon not the authority but the assessment of the Chair that a total carte blanche, irrespective of the purpose of legislation, has been given for payments out of the Consolidated Fund by the financial resolution attached to a specific Act.
I hope, therefore, Mr. Weatherill, that you will permit me to appeal to you to consider the matter further and to carry it beyond the point which underlay the assessment which you were good enough to make to the Committee.

Mr. Julian Amery: Further to that point of order, Mr. Weatherill. The statement that you made was extremely clear, but it deepened my anxiety about the serious constitutional points that the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) raised at the beginning of our proceedings.
When I was a Minister at the Colonial Office many years ago there were many dependencies that had their own budgets. It was possible for Ministers to take action independently of money being voted from the House because no money had to be voted from the House.
With regard to the United Kingdom, we have always rightly assumed, ever since the Great Rebellion, that the authority of the House rested on our ability to control Supply. If I understand aright, we are being asked to approve the financial consequences of a 1982 Bill on the basis of a 1973 Act. Those measures both happen to be about the Northern Ireland constitution, but one is no more related to the other than is a Bill about housing in Great Britain related to one about housing in England and Wales. There is no link between the 1973 Act and the 1982 Bill.
I should like to ask whether there is a precedent—I have searched assiduously without success—for the money resolution of an old Act being tagged on to a new Bill When there is no direct connection between them. I wonder whether it would be easier for the Government to get out of this serious difficulty by taking back the Bill and coming forward with a new money resolution integral to the new measures that they are proposing.
If you were to think that that solution was right, Mr. Weatherill, you might invite the Secretary of State to suspend the Sitting now to see whether this step could be effected at short notice so that when we meet again after the recess a proper measure will be before us instead of this curious hybrid that tries to marry part of a defunct Act with a new Bill, which, whatever we think of it, ought to be clean from from that point of view, if it is to be seriously considered by the Committee.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

The Chairman: Order. I shall answer the question asked by the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery), particularly on precedent, because that might help the Committee. I can quote a precedent. Section 3(1) of the Shipbuilding (Redundancy Payments) Bill 1977 gave power to the Secretary of State to make payments to British Shipbuilders. Those payments were a charge on the United Kingdom Consolidated Fund and were consequently covered by a money resolution. Section 3(2) of the same Bill gave power to the Department of Manpower Service for Northern Ireland to make payments to Northern Ireland companies. Those payments were a


charge on the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund and consequently were not covered by a money resolution. That is the precedent.

Mr. Amery: Were those payments related to previous legislation or did they constitute an integral part of new legislation?

The Chairman: They came out of the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund. I stress that the House retains control over money paid into that fund by means of the Estimates.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Further to the points of order that have been raised, and your two rulings, Mr. Weatherill.
I would summarise what the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said as follows. He deplored section 16 of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973. However, if he deplores it, that does not remove one iota of its force. What it says is absolutely clear. It does not relate itself to the Northern Ireland Assembly or anything else.
I have looked back at the long title to the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973, which does not say anything about assemblies. It says that it is
An Act to make new provision for the government of Northern Ireland".
That is the long title. Part II, which contains section 16, is headed
Legislative Powers and Executive Authorities".
The second half of part II is headed "Financial provisions". That part does not concern the Assembly but is about what it says it is about—financial provisions. Clause 16 is not in the context of Northern Ireland Assemblies or anything else but is in the context of a Bill, now an Act
to make new provision for the government of Northern Ireland".
Clause 16(1) states
The Secretary of State may from time to time pay out of moneys provided by Parliament into the Consolidated Fund of Northern Ireland such sums by way of grant as he may with the consent of the Treasury determine and may, in connection with any such payment, impose such conditions as he may with the like consent determine.
As the right hon. Member for Down, South will see when he looks at Hansard, several times he slipped into saying "the Consolidated Fund," which is the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom, when he meant "the Consolidated Fund of Northern Ireland." They are distinct and different. The Consolidated Fund of Northern Ireland is not, and never has been, subject to the same controls by the House as the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom, for this reason: that for which we have to impose taxation is the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom. It is that which is within the historic control of the House of Commons. That control is in no way cancelled by section 16, because, if there is any burden or charge to be imposed on public resources from the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom, that requires the vote of the House. Therefore, I respectfully submit that the House has not surrendered one iota of its control.
In their submissions, various right hon. and hon. Members have bewailed the fact that they did not think of the consequences of section 16 of the 1973 Act when it went through its Committee and Report stages in the House. However, that is now beyond redress. Convenient as it might have been in terms of saving the time of the

House—convenient as it might have been to have a separate money resolution attached to the Bill, which we are about to consider—that would be a work of supererogation because it is validly covered by the money resolution attached to the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 which, I repeat for the sense of clarity, was in no way confined in its scope to the provision of the Assembly. That was only one of a large number of matters that were covered, and its so widely drawn long title was accurate—
An Act to make new provision for the government of Northern Ireland".
Both Houses of Parliament assented to that.

Mr. Nick Budgen: Further to that point of order, Mr. Weatherill, I wish to make a practical suggestion. You described the remarks that you read from an obviously prepared statement as your assessment. You have heard the observations of a number of right hon. and hon. Members on what is plainly an extremely difficult point. Listening to the detailed arguments that have been put forward with great learning and experience, I have found it difficult to form a conclusion.
However, it seems that you were right in describing your prepared remarks as an assessment for, if I may use an analogy of the law courts, it would be wrong for a judge to come into court and, after counsel had opened his case and without any further observation, to read the judgment. We have the advantage of considerable learning and advice being given to the Chair in what is a very difficult matter. It would be wrong for the Chair to rule on this matter now. I agree with the word that you used, Mr. Weatherill—"assessment"—meaning a preliminary point of view that was reached without the benefit of argument. I suggest that this discussion now be adjourned—there are many methods open to the Chair—in order to allow further consideration. In that way, the learning and the eloquence that has properly been put before the Chair can be considered so that that which started quite properly as an assessment may reach fruition in a considered ruling.
To do otherwise would be to give the impression to the Committee—I am sure that the Chair would not wish to do so—that the Chair had come to this Committee with a written, pre-considered ruling without having had the benefit of considering the arguments that have flowed backwards and forwards in Committee. I hope that we shall allow the Chair to give proper consideration to the matter. If not, there is surely a risk of error.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: Further to that point of order, Mr. Weatherill. I wonder whether those of us who are not so learned in the procedure of the House and who have been most impressed by the expertise displayed by many of the speakers could have a little elucidation about the implications both of your assessment and the point that has been made by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). The issue appears to be one of fundamental constitutional importance. From reading the previous proceedings on the Northern Ireland Assembly Act 1973 and seeing the wording of the money resolution, I feel that there are good grounds for concern about the development of the rules governing this place if your assessment turns into a ruling.
I am mostly worried about the meaning of money resolutions themselves. I take it that they are a special


means of authorising charges on the public revenue in a separate way from simply including charging provisions in the various sections. The reasons for money resolutions are, first, convenience and, secondly, the constitutional position of this House and the Executive concerning all charges on the public revenue. Before we enter into detailed discussions of a Bill, we must always pass a money resolution, but in this case the money resolution is extremely scant in its terms.
The resolution seems to say that extra charges on the public revenue that might be required because of new arrangements for election of Members to the Assembly shall be authorised by this money resolution and then we are referred back to the money resolution that applies to the 1973 Act.
That resolution begins:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to establish a Northern Ireland Assembly, and to provide for election to that Assembly, it is expedient to authorise.
If one leaves for the moment the point that that was simply by way of description, one sees that the terms of that resolution are very wide indeed. It concludes with the words
any payment into the Consolidated Fund.
5.45 pm
What was authorised in 1973 was unlimited power to charge upon the public revenue and, if the assessment is to be a ruling, indefinitely into the future. One matter about the philosophy of money resolutions that I have understood from reading about them in "Erskine May" is that they are protected in the sense that no one who drafted the procedure wished Members of Parliament other than the Government to authorise expenditure that was not already narrowly confined. Therefore, in order to avoid the possibility of framing a money resolution in narrow terms, so that no amendment to the Bill could be proposed by a Back Bencher which might involve expenditure additional to that covered by the resolution, it was deprecated that money resolutions should be framed tightly. "Erskine May" is full of references to the Speaker saying that it is undesirable that the terms of a money resolution should be narrowly drawn.
It is obvious that at that time it was taken for granted that the Government would not in a money resolution simply authorise a charge on the public revenue in very wide terms—so wide that there is no restriction whatsoever—or authorise for any Act of lasting validity a blank and undated cheque. Constitutionally, that must be fundamentally wrong. It is contrary to all the principles of the supremacy of Parliament over the Executive and one cannot see how, in principle, it could possibly be right. For those reasons, I also ask you to reconsider your assessment.

The Chairman: Perhaps it would be advisable for me to rule on the matter now because we have had considerable discussion. I am grateful for the views that have been expressed, but I explained to the Committee in my assessment that expenditure involved, other than the cost of electing the Assembly, will be met from the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund, and no money resolution is required for that. The Committee agrees that.
Should the Government desire to make grants to that fund they have clear powers to do so under section 16 of the 1973 Act. That is part of the statute law of our country. Control over such payments will be with the House

because they must be included in the Estimates that must be submitted to and agreed by the House. Therefore, I now rule that it is in order for us to proceed under this money resolution.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Further to your ruling, Mr. Weatherill. I wonder whether you would clarify two points, one of which arose out of your reply to the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amer) ). When he asked for a precedent you were good enough to quote section 3 of the Shipbuilding (Redundancy Payments) Act 1977. You pointed out that since that was a United Kingdom Act, the Great Britain provisions were met by section 3(1) and the Northern Ireland provisions were met by section 3(2). However, I feel that the difficulty of the right hon. Member for Pavilion was that the precedent that he was seeking and which the Committee is seeking is that of a charging power given for the purposes of one Act being applied for the purposes of a different Act.
May I put it to you this way, Mr. Weatherill. The precedent would be established if section 3(1) of the Shipbuilding (Redundancy Payments) Act 1977 v, ere applied for the purposes of a new Bill, say the "Shipbuilding Welfare Fund Bill 1982". In that case, we would have a new Bill for a new purpose. Surely it cannot be possible that the Government would say, or that we would be advised, that they do not need to have power because we have given the Minister the necessary' power in connection with redundancy payments.
Essentially, that was the point that the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook)) was making. I am sure that what he said will be within your recollection, Mr. Weatherill, namely, that over the past 20 or 25 years there has been a change in the drafting of money resolutions. I can remember that I had to defend them when I was Financial Secretary. It was frequently complained that the terms of the financial resolutions were tied too closely to the individual prescriptions of the Bill to which they applied. That objection was met by widening the terms of financial resolutions. The purpose of the widening was to enable Members to move amendments within the general scope of Bills without always being told "You cannot have that amendment because it is not covered by the money resolution."
The point on which I ask you to comment, Mr. Weatherill, is that we made this relaxtion and change in our procedure with no thought whatever that by doing so we were giving more carte blanche to the Government at the end of the day when the Act was on the statute book, and that, least of all, there was no significance in the introductory formula. I think we all said "If this is a money resolution for the purpose of this Bill and we know what the purposes of the Bill are because they are clear enough from the terms and the scope of the Bill, then give us a money resolution which is wide enough."
The hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) was unfair, despite my confession, in saying that the Committee and the House in 1977 did not think of the consequences because, perfectly innocently, they supposed that they were making provision for the purposes of the 1973 Act, which the hon. Member for Tiverton read out. In 1973, hon. Members could not have imagined that, even with foresight, they were making provision for a quite different provision for the government of Northern Ireland to be made nine years later.
We are in the difficulty of having the ruling which you have just given, Mr. Weatherill, but nevertheless are without a valid precedent for what we are doing, as was sought by the right hon. Member for Pavilion. We are in a situation that was probably unfamiliar and unsuspected by the Committee when it considered the Bill. I hope, Mr. Weatherill, that you will be able to respond to the suggestion that if we are to proceed with the Bill we need to be covered by a precedent which precisely matches what is happening in this case rather than, with respect, that which you cited to the right hon. Member for Pavilion.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

The Chairman: Order. Let me reply to one point of order at a time. I apologise to the Committee if I did not make it plain, but in giving that precedent to the right hon. Gentleman I should have said, and I say now, that the authority for the payments out of the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund was section 16 of the 1973 Act, the one that we are already dealing with.

Mr. John Farr: May I add my support to the interpretation that the Committee has given to your ruling, Mr. Weatherill. I am particularly worried that you have hinged your ruling on section 16 of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973. I believe I can truthfully say that that came as a great surprise to us.
The Committee should be aware that we are attaching an unusual gravity to a small section in a 1973 Act. We are seeking to make that section a well of unlimited depth whereby the Exchequer has access to funds ad lib. But section 16 of the 1973 Act was never debated in Committee, or on Report, and in July 1973 went through the House on the nod.
I submit to you, Mr. Weatherill, that in 1973 the House was otherwise occupied and that if there had been an inkling in those months of June and July 1973 that this consequence was to be hinged upon this tiny little section in the 1973 Act, it would certainly have been the subject of detailed discussion, amendment and debate.
Although I have the greatest respect for all of your rulings, Mr. Weatherill, I cannot agree that just two precedents will suffice. We are discussing a matter of constitutional consequence. It is of great significance and importance to the whole of the United Kingdom. It is a matter that deserves, and should have, a money resolution of its own.

The Chairman: Order. What the hon. Gentleman said is a matter of opinion. The fact is that the House has agreed to a money resolution. The Constitution Act 1973 is now part of statute law and we are bound by it.
We should now proceed to the motion in the name of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the order in which proceedings in Committee on the Northern Ireland Bill are to be taken shall be Clauses 1 and 2, Schedule 1, Clauses 3 to 6, Schedule 2, Clause 7, New Clauses, New Schedules and Schedule 3.—[Mr. Prior.]

The Chairman: I have not selected any amendments to the motion.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Am I right in understanding that this is a debatable motion.

The Chairman: It is a debatable motion.

Mr. Powell: I am sorry that I did not rise immediately, but I thought that other hon. Members had done so. [HON. MEMBERS: "We did."] I am happy to defer——

The Chairman: Order. I thought that the other hon. Members who rose were still intent on pursuing the previous point of order.

Mr. Powell: I am grateful to you, Mr. Weatherill. I hope that nothing I say will take any wind from the sails of other hon. Members who may wish to speak to this motion. If I can say it without impropriety, I can well understand that you, Mr. Weatherill, might have felt that they wished to continue to examine the astonishing subject that has been before us during the past one and a half hours.
I have some observations to make on this motion. There are respects in which the proposal is objectionable. I do not know whether it is the custom in such cases for the Secretary of State to consult other elements in the House before tabling such a motion. I am not aware that my hon. Friends and I were consulted and I hope, therefore, that he will not regard it as a discourtesy if, not having been consulted, we find ground for taking objection to it.
In recent years, and quite frequently, it has become the custom of the House to adopt in Committee a motion of this kind to ensure that the schedules, as used to be the case, are not considered at a long distance of time from the clauses to which they relate, so that the Bill, despite the traditional manner of drawing it up, is regrouped more rationally. None of us takes any exception to that practice. It has produced more handy and tidy debates in many cases, and on the whole has been an improvement on procedure, as it was some decades ago.
6 pm
However, the application of that general and laudable principle to this Bill, and the motion before the Committee, is defective in at least two respects. The motion proposes to take schedule 2 after clauses 3 to 6 but before clause 7. Clause 7 is interesting, because it gives the Bill its baptism. At this stage, I do not wish to say anything against clause 7, but one wonders why it is thought appropriate to spatchcock schedule 2 between clauses 6 and 7.
That train of thought leads to another. Some of the amendments that schedule 2 makes to the 1973 Act, which has already been referred to a good deal this afternoon, can be regarded as consequential upon or related to the Bill's substantial provisions. I fail to understand why they were more specifically related to clauses 3 to 6 than to clauses 1 and 2.
There is no doubt about what I am about to say. Perhaps I should modify that injudicious certitude and say that I understand that there is not likely to be any doubt about the fact that schedule 2 amends the 1973 Act at large. If that is correct, as I expect, Mr. Weatherill, you may be advised that it is, schedule 2 not merely serves the purposes of the body of the Bill, but enables the Committee to propose and consider a series of amendments to the 1973 Act.
The Bill enables us to amend the 1973 Act, and one of the principal vehicles for the amendment of that Act is schedule 2. That being the case, it seems to be in accordance with our general practice that, instead of


bringing the schedule forward, we should be able to deal with it at its normal late place in the consideration of the Bill.
We have a lot still to find out about the meaning of the clauses. Indeed, the large number of amendments that have been tabled is eloquent testimony to the difficulty that many hon. Members, not only those from Northern Ireland, have found in construing the provisions of the clauses and understanding how they fit together both practically and legislatively.
After we have accomplished that task—I fear from the nature of the clauses that it will necessarily be a long and difficult one—that is the time when hon. Members will be ready to make up their minds as to the respects in which they feel the 1973 Act could benefit by amendment. If anything, I am sure that this was an oversight, but in effect the motion denies the Committee the opportunity to consider at the latest point, with retrospect on all the debating that has gone before, what further amendments it wishes to propose in schedule 2 to the 1973 Act.
I suspect that when we have been able to contemplate the working of the 1973 Act, as applied progressively by the rolling, if not the steamroller, devolution procedure envisaged in the Bill, the Act itself will take on quite a different aspect. By the time the Committee has completed its consideration of the Bill and the new clauses in the normal order, there are many aspects of the 1973 Act that I believe it will still want to have the opportunity of amending. I believe it would have been right—this is one of the objections that my hon. Friends and I have to the motion—for schedule 2 to have been taken in its normal place before schedule 3 and almost at the end of the consideration of the Bill.
There is another novelty that absolutely defeats me. New schedules are to be taken before the existing schedules. I was under the impression that our basic procedure was first to take clauses contained and then new clauses, followed by the schedules and the new schedules. Why on earth we should take the new schedules before the existing schedules, I cannot imagine.
It is only fair to make the concession that I recognise the convenience of schedule 1 being attached to clauses 1 and 2. In that respect the motion serves the convenience of the Committee, but unless the Secretary of State is prepared to amend the motion, the difficulties to which I have drawn exception are serious, and, speaking for my hon. Friends and myself, we would not be inclined to discuss the Bill in accordance with the motion.

Mr. Budgen: I confess to finding some difficulty in considering the order in which my right hon. Friend proposes that we should consider the Bill. It seems to me that overhanging our consideration is the menace of new clause 4.
The Committee will recollect that the right hon. Member for Mansfield, (Mr. Concannon) and his hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley) have persistently argued that they wish to see a united Ireland by consent, and to that end they have most properly tabled new clause 4. I hope I shall be forgiven if I refer the Committee to the new clause in some detail, because its prime importance will then be obvious. It refers to:
Relations with the Republic of Ireland
and the four hon. Members whose names appear on the new clause wish to move:

The Assembly shall, by its Standing Orders, make prov.ision for the establishment of a Committee of Members of the Assembly for the purpose of
(i) discussing such matters as it or the Assembly may consider necessary to improve relations between the Assembly and the Republic of Ireland;
(ii) entering into discussions with those authorities in the Republic of Ireland as seem appropriate with regard to (i) above;
(iii) reporting such discussions to the Assembly together with such recommendations as may have been approved by the Committee and the appropriate authorities in the Republic of Ireland.".
I shall soon adduce some undenied reports to support the proposition that the Secretary of State may agree to new clause 4.

The Chairman: Order. We must not get on to the merits of new clause 4. We are dealing with the order in which the clauses are taken.

Mr. Budgen: Of course, Mr. Weatherill. Nevertheless, if the Secretary of State will agree to new clause 4, that important agreement will change the whole attitude of many members of the Committee towards the remainder of their consideration of the Bill. If the proposed Assembly is to be vested with powers to consider an all-Ireland dimension with a view to creating a united Ireland—which is what the Opposition properly want—many of my right hon. and hon. Friends, and the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), will wish to put in the Bill tight conditions upon the way in which those committees may consider these important matters.
I respectfully suggest that if we were able to have a discussion on new clause 4 at an early stage, the House would know whether that was or was not one of the items upon which the Secretary of State will make an important concession. I do not in any way wish to debate the merits of the matter. Nor do I wish to cast any doubt upon those whose attitude to politics is always to seek consensus. The Secretary of State, in his understandable desire for consensus, and because he may think that there will be circumstances when he will wish to have the active support of the Opposition, might wish to make a real and substantial concession to them. I say that as a result of some cursory consideration that I have given to reports in the papers.
On 2 April, in The Times, Mr. Julian Haviland reported, under the heading "Prior's Ulster assembly given Cabinet backing":
Another change agreed yesterday, partly on the Prime Minister's insistence, weakens the White Paper's reference to the parliamentary tier of the Anglo-Irish consultative council, a concept which provokes both Unionist and backbench Conservative opinion without cutting much ice with Mr. Charles Haughey, Prime Minister of the Irish Republic.
But the White Paper is said to be more positive about the so-called 'Irish dimension' than previous government statements. It emphasises the 'legitimate aspirations' of Ulster's minority community.
On 6 April which, you will recall, Mr. Weatherill, was the day after the publication of the White Paper, there was a report in The Guardian by Julia Langdon and David Beresford called "Cold shoulder for Prior's Ulster proposals". That article also heralded what may be a substantial concession. It said:
The Secretary of State is thought to have toned down the section of the White Paper dealing with the 'Irish dimension' since he brought his draft plan before his ministerial colleagues in Cabinet.


In the proposals put forward yesterday, Mr. Prior was careful to stress that decisions about a parliamentary tier for the new Anglo-Irish Inter-governmental council would be taken by the London and Dublin Parliaments. But"—
I am sure you will agree, Mr. Weatherill, that it is always the "buts" that are interesting—
he said that it was possible that members of an elected assembly in Northern Ireland could take part if a parliamentary level was established.".
I am not dealing with the substance of the matter. I am merely explaining why it is likely that my right hon. Friend will make a substantial concession at a later stage. I am explaining why, if it, is made, many of my right hon. and hon. Friends will feel that they would have preferred to know about it at an earlier stage. I am not seeking to comment on the substance of the matter. I am merely trying to assure you, Mr. Weatherill, that I can conceive that there is a possibility of such a concession being made.
6.15 pm
You will remember, Mr. Weatherill, that on the morning of 10 May, when it was still uncertain how various parties in this House would vote on Second Reading of the Northern Ireland Bill, there was an authoritative article in the Financial Times by Margaret van Hattem. She said, plainly as a result of guidance, where it was likely that the Government would make concessions to lubricate the Bill through its Committee stage. She set out several points where, as she regrettably called it—I would not use such a vulgar phrase—the horse-trading might take place.

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman must relate all his points to the clauses, the amendments or whatever, and the order in which they should be taken. He must not discuss the merits.

Mr. Budgen: I quite understand. I am extremely grateful to you, Mr. Weatherill, for your guidance. I am going through those points because many hon. Members might think, as they hear me making my request that new clause 4 be considered first, that my belief that there could be a concession is purely imaginary, that it springs from my mischievous mind and that there is no evidence to support it.
I hope that I am explaining that several important pieces of guidance have been given to the press and that they have never been denied. Thus, I assert that there is a serious possibility that a concession may be made. Far be it from me to speak on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, but some right hon. and hon. Members might change their attitude towards the Bill if they thought that that concession would be made. I am not saying that they feel sold out—no one in the Tory Party speaks in such vulgar terms. But if I may speak in the more delicate terms that this side of the House employs, some colleagues may feel that it is regrettable that the necessary concessions had not been referred to at an earlier stage.
Before I am attacked for my imagination and, as perhaps some loyalists might say, malice, under the subheading "The Anglo-Irish dimension", the Financial Times of 10 May said:
The opposition parties will press for the early establishment of a parliamentary tier to the Anglo-Irish Council and for direct provision in the Bill for Northern Ireland assembly members to take part in it.
The article continues with the important words that have never been denied: "This also appears negotiable". In

other words, it seems to hold out a clear signal that if the Labour Party played along and gave its support, the Anglo-Irish Council would become a reality. The Labour Party could then legitimately argue in Northern Ireland that it had taken significant steps towards the creation of a united Ireland.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I was somewhat surprised at one of the hon Gentleman's remarks and have been puzzling about it since. He referred to being attacked by loyalists as though it were rather like being attacked by wolves. I wondered whether he used the expression with its Northern Ireland connotation or whether it is now an "in" word in the Conservative Party. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can help me on that.

Mr. Budgen: The right hon. Gentleman should understand that those whom I described as "loyalists" are those splendid people whom every party should cherish who believe that legislation should go through on the nod and who say, as it were, "I don't understand a word of it, old boy, but Jim's a good chap and we have to do something".

The Chairman: Order. Has this anything to do with the order in which the clauses are taken?

Mr. Budgen: A moment ago, Mr. Weatherill, you referred with elegance and diffidence to your written observations as a preliminary assessment. As we are giving detailed consideration to the Bill with a view to improving it, it is important, as the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) says, to get the words right. In my English ignorance, I used the term "loyalist", which has an important but different meaning in Northern Ireland, and the right hon. Gentleman was right to take me up on it.

Mr. Molyneaux: I apologise for interrupting so soon after the previous intervention. The matter of cross-community consent features very largely in the clauses and schedules covered by the motion. Perhaps the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) could help us further in defining categories. If those whom he describes as "loyalists" represent one section of the Conservative Party, may we assume that all the rest are unionists?

Mr. Budgen: I do not know. We are now in more progressive and ongoing days. I would not wish to suggest that the present progressive party should in any way be hampered by its outdated past. I am sure that our present stance must be very different, as I understand that we are now committed to progressive materialism, more legislation and much that might well seem alien to our fuddy-duddy past.
I merely suggest that, as there is a serious possibility that an important concession will be made on new clause 4 which may change the attitude of many Members, it should be considered at the beginning, so that there is no misunderstanding later.

Mr. Amery: You were kind enough to advise me, Mr. Weatherill, that my amendments Nos. 1 and 4 were outside the scope of the clause to which they referred because the clause dealt only with the resumption of functions previously possessed by the Assembly and did not cater for new functions. The purpose of my amendments was to suggest that the Assembly should effectively become a regional local government authority.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Things have been rather confusing lately. I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman may not be anticipating something that will come later. It is difficult to relate his remarks to the Secretary of State's motion to alter the order in which the Bill is taken. If I have misunderstood the drift of his argument, perhaps he will forgive me.

The Chairman: Order. I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's preliminary assessment of what the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) was about to say. I hope that the right hon. Member for Pavilion does not intend to dwell upon an amendment that was not selected. We are dealing with the order in which the clauses and schedules should be taken, as set out in the Secretary of State's motion.

Mr. Amery: I was coming to that, Mr. Weatherill. I do not think that I am anticipating. You were also kind enough to say that the points that I wish to make in amendment No. 4 could perfectly well be put in a new clause under schedule 2.
Without going into the merits of the case in any way, it is well known to you, Mr. Weatherill, that many of us who are uneasy about the Bill would like local government to be restored in the Province, but the Secretary of State has, so far, set his face against that. I shall not go into the argument as to who is right or wrong, as there will be opportunities for that later. If, however, the new clause that you were kind enough to indicate would be in order were carried at a late stage in the discussion, much of the earlier discussion might well be wrecked and spoilt and the Committee would have wasted its time through not having first considered the crucial question of the main direction in which the element of devolution under discussion should go.

The Chairman: Order. I am sorry to stop the right hon. Gentleman, but I think that it would be wrong and unfair if he discussed here helpful guidance that was given to him in private. He was given the opportunity to come and discuss his amendments and the ways in which it might be possible to help him, but we cannot discuss that here. Certainly it has nothing whatever to do with the motion now under discussion.

Mr. Amery: I bow to your ruling, of course, Mr. Weatherill. I just wondered whether this should be reconsidered. Otherwise, the whole thread of our discussion may be led into confusion.

Mr. Farr: I wish to question one or two points about the sequence of selection, which I find thoroughly mystifying. As has been eloquently put by Members on both sides of the Committee, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen), a good case can be made out for accepting or altering any order that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State suggests. I am sure that at the end of the discussion the House should, and probably will, resolve to follow common sense and to take the darned things in chronological order.

Mr. Budgen: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Farr: I have not even started to deploy my argument. I enjoyed my hon. Friend's argument. Perhaps I may make some progress with mine.
I cannot understand why the new schedules should be taken before schedule 3, or indeed why the Bill should be

chopped around further. I can perhaps understand taking schedule 1 after clause 2, but it is difficult to understand why schedule 2 should be taken immediately after clause 6. In any event, the whole thing does not really make sense, as in the provisional selection that you, Mr. Weatherill, have been good enough to make, clauses 11 and 12 are included in a group of amendments to be taken later.
6.30 pm
I suggest that we have the new clauses first and that after that we should work in chronological order. The advantage of having the new clauses first has been pointed out. For instance, if the Government intended any changes of emphasis in the new clause relating to the Republic of Ireland, the House would benefit from knowing of it now. Indeed, it is not the only new clause on which the House would benefit from knowing the Government's view before it reaches the nitty gritty of the Bill rather than afterwards
I agree that if, for instance, new clause 4 were recommended by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, it would tinge the whole colouring of the Bill.

Mr. Clive Soley: I hesitate to intervene too brutally in the internal disputes of the Conservative Party, or the Conservative and Unionist Party as it used to be known in the old days, but if it is any help at all, either to the hon. Gentleman or to his hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South West (M r. Budgen), I have received no sight of this horse that is supposed to be up for trading. If I or my right hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) did have a sight of it, we would want to have a long hard look at it to ensure that it could do the job that we thought necessary and was not something that was being carried out of the knacker's yard—not that I am suggesting that the Financial Times trades in knackers; if anything, the contrary is true.

Mr. Farr: I know that the hon. Gentleman is an honourable and straight-forward man. I have no doubt that he has told the House what he believes to be the truth. However, I can tell him that a lot goes on between his right hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) and other right hon. and hon. Friends that he does not know about, just as on this side of the House there are a good deal of things that my right hon. Friends discuss that I do not know of. It would be as well if we were to have the official Government view in relation to new clause 4.

Mr. John Gorst: Would it make any difference to the hon. Gentleman's argument, and to those of my hon. Friend, if the Government were to give an indication at this stage, perhaps by a statement, of a change of mind? I should have thought that it would be helpful for the Government to do that and it would also suggest that we should not proceed any further today so that we could give proper consideration to the statement.

Mr. Farr: I will gladly give way to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State if he wishes to say something at this time. He must be beginning to sense the view of the Committee that there is quite a bit behind new clause 4 that the Committee should know of.
I do not disapprove of new clause 4, but hon. Members will have their view of the whole Bill coloured by the outcome of new clause 4. That is one reason why I think,


as I have said, the amendments should be taken in chronological order but that the new clauses should come first.
I have probably been in the House too long, but I have never understood why new clauses come first on Report but not in Committee. I am sure that there is a good reason. Only this week the Transport Bill went through the House. Several important new clauses were taken on Monday and Tuesday, finishing with the Third Reading at about 9 o'clock on Tuesday. The whole tempo of that Bill was coloured by the new clauses that were taken first. We got them out of the way. Some were accepted by the Government, some were withdrawn and others were just discussed. However, we had the correct colouring of the subsequent nitty gritty of the debate and the Bill made more sense thereafter.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The hon. Gentleman expressed some puzzlement at the fact that new clauses are taken last in Committee and first on Report. I do not know what authority lay behind it, but the explanation that was given to me at an early stage in my own parliamentary days by the late Walter Elliott was that Committees are deemed to start with a blank piece of paper. As each clause is ordered to stand part, it is, as it were, put on to the blank paper, until, at the end of the Committee's work, it has constructed or reconstructed a Bill. However, when it comes to be reported, it is a whole, presented as a whole. One begins by saying what has to be added before looking at the individual parts of it. In other words, the procedure in Committee is essentially a block-building exercise, whereas the procedure on Report is an inspection of a predetermined entity. There are wiser persons on this subject than I who are silently listening to this but it is an item of law that I thought might interest the hon. Gentleman and, possibly, the Committee.

Mr. Amery: On a point of order, Mr. Weatherill. If I may so, that is an extremely important ruling by the right hon. Gentleman. Will you give the Committee guidance on whether you are prepared to endorse the right hon. Gentleman's statement?

The Chairman: I was very interested in the right hon. Gentleman's assessment, but I do not think that it has anything to do with the motion that we are discussing.
I believe that the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) was coming to a conclusion.

Mr. Budgen: Further to that point of order, Mr. Weatherill.

The Chairman: No point of order arises on that.

Mr. Budgen: On another point of order, Mr. Weatherill. When the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley) made his helpful intervention, his right hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) was not in the Chamber. Several assertions have been made about high-level contacts that can be made. Would it not be for the convenience of the Committee if an opportunity were immediately given to the right hon. Member for Mansfield to tell us whether he has had any private conversations with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about any proposed concessions on new clause 4?

The Chairman: Order. The right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) will have the opportunity to speak if he so wishes.

Mr. Farr: With great respect, Mr. Weatherill, I was not coming to my conclusion. My speech, short as it is, has been interrupted, quite properly, by several hon. Members.
I come to the main reason for my disagreement with the order of selection laid down by my right hon. Friend. If one turns to the 13 or so new clauses that have been tabled, which I submit should be discussed first, one finds some of great consequence. We have already referred to new clause 4 and asked what is the view of the Government, or, for that matter, the view of the Government of the Republic of Ireland, in relation to closer parliamentary consultation. There are also many other important clauses. Some of them, if they were discussed first and got out of the way, would perhaps make unnecessary any further discussion on the Bill in the foreseeable future.
For instance, if we were to discuss new clauses 11 and 12 first, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart), in relation to referendum 1 and referendum 2, and the House were to decide that it wished to see these excellent proposals put into effect, it would make any further progress on the Bill meaningless, until such time as the referendums had taken place, and therefore, served as a useful point of guidance to the House.
A further important point that the House should seek guidance on before it proceeds to discuss the details of the Bill——

Mr. Budgen: My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) took me up on this point. I do not wish to detain the House. I should point out that we are in Committee.

Mr. Farr: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for that point. As always, he is right.
New clause 3 has been tabled by the right hon. Member for Mansfield and concerns a presiding officer. Again, it is an important new clause. It would be sensible if the Committee were to discuss the presiding officer, how he is to be appointed and how the selection is to be made before discussing the Bill's details. Later—probably on another day—we shall discuss references in the Bill to the presiding officer. As far as I can see, the Government have not set out how he is to be selected, or any of the details found in new clause 3. They are not included in the Bill.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) has tabled a new clause dealing with the remuneration of Assembly members. During points of order, we discussed the financing of the new Assembly and the relevance of the 1973 Act. However, new clause 8 deals with the remuneration of Assembly members. It represents a critical financial angle and affects the cost of the Bill to the country. In addition, new clause 10 refers to the size of the Assembly and suggests that there should be 68 members instead of 78. If the number of members is 68, the cost to the Exchequer will be less. Therefore, such matters must be considered differently. The recommended order moved by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State does not make sense, because later today we shall discuss new clauses 11 and 12. The whole idea should be dropped, because it is meaningless.

Mr. Molyneaux: It is true that consultations took place at an early stage, before the preparation and drafting of the White Paper. There were further consultations before the drafting of the Bill. However, all hon. Members greatly regret that the Government did not find time to reflect on the useful and informative debate on the White Paper before drafting the Bill. They might have avoided many headaches if they had done so.

Mr. Gorst: The hon. Gentleman has said that consultations took place. Will he be more specific and say whether consultations took place on the order in which the clauses should be considered? If so, what representations did he make at the time?

Mr. Molyneaux: I shall come to that point in a moment. Consultations also took place on the drafting of the White Paper and the Bill within the party that supports the Government. Various reports surfaced in the press and elsewhere on that matter. Perhaps, whenever the Secretary of State consulted, he obtained opinions that he did not like and he was then forced to act in defiance of the advice that he had received. Wisely, or unwisely, he may then have decided to give up the idea of consultation altogether.
That brings me to the point legitimately raised by the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst). Earlier it was asked what consultations, if any, took place. The hon. Gentleman also asked that question. To my certain knowledge, no such consultations took place with any member of my party. I do not know whether there were consultations with any other hon. Members for Northern Ireland constituencies.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I assure the hon. Gentleman that no consultations have taken place with members of my party.

Mr. Molyneaux: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that information. Perhaps we can assume that the Opposition's silence means that they were not consulted about the wording of the motion. Indeed, their silence must indicate consent to that proposition. I hope that their silence will not be perpetuated throughout the debate, because Her Majesty's Opposition always have a constructive part to play in our affairs.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) extracted an undertaking and promise from the Leader of the House that there would be consultations on those aspects with which the Leader of the House was involved. That means the processing of the legislation. However, having heard hon. Members' assurances that no consultations took place before the drafting of the motion, I must point out that the Secretary of State is making his task much more difficult. He has put us all in the intolerable position of being unable to understand why he has grouped the clauses and schedules in the way that he has.
We all understand that the purpose of such a motion is to group, or perhaps to regroup, clauses and schedules to allow for a constructive and orderly debate and for the Committee's convenience. However, all of us believe that the proposed grouping is clumsy and unnatural. Clauses 1 and 2 deal mainly with the 1973 Act and with the modifications made in the 1974 Act. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South, I find the grouping incomprehensible. We have given great thought to the

motion and have examined it carefully. We have tried to consider it sympathetically and to see how we could contribute to the smooth and orderly running of the debase, but we cannot find any justification for the proposed arradgement. Unless the Secretary of State is prepared to be reasonable and to accept the very convincing reasons that hon. Members from both sides of the Committee have put forward, we shall resist any attempt to proceed further with discussion of the Bill.

Rev. Ian Paisley: This matter is of the utmost importance to the people of Northern Ireland. I wish to address my remarks to new clause 4. The debate will be reported in Northern Ireland and the people should know its contents. Under the heading

Relations with the Republic of Ireland,

it states:
`The Assembly shall, by its Standing Orders, make provision for the establishment of Committee of Members of the Assembly for the purpose of
(i) discussing such matters as it or the Assembly may consider necessary to improve relations between the Assembly and the Republic of Ireland;
(ii) entering into discussions with those authorities in the Republic of Ireland as seem appropriate with regard to (i) above;
(iii) reporting such discussions to the Assembly together with such recommendations as may have been approved by the Committee and the appropriate authorities in the Republic of Ireland.'.

That clause is of utmost importance to the debate of this subject by representatives from Northern Ireland. It would certainly change my attitude to certain aspects of the Bill which I have discussed both in the White Paper debate and also on Second Reading.

If the Secretary of State wants the people of Northern Ireland to know exactly what is in his mind, he should tell us whether he intends to accommodate Her Majesty 's Opposition on the proposals that lie in new clause 4. If that is so, I warn him that there will be serious opposition from my party here and in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Stanbrook: Has the hon. Gentleman considered the proposals in the White Paper referring to a parliamentary tier in an Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Council? That seems to command the support of the Government Front Bench but not of their Back Benches.

Rev. Ian Paisley: All I can say is that in these consultations—as they have been called though I would hardly upgrade them to consultations—we put our views and the Secretary of State listened to them. It is evident that he did not take any of them on board in regard to the main principles where our objections lie.
We were put off that interesting subject by talk about a club. That was said to every Unionist deputation that visited the Secretary of State. We were told that it would be only a club like the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association or the Inter-Parliamentary Union and that those who wanted to join could do so. I am opposed to any such forum and I have always made my opposition known forthrightly.
I asked the Secretary of State what the position of a Member of the Assembly would be if he decided to join the club and the Assembly voted to censure him because it was opposed to any of its Members being a member of this club, or whatever the Government want to call it. Of course, we got no satisfactory response from the Secretary of State.
My attitude to relations with the South of Ireland is simple. We should go back to the principle that was always followed by previous Governments of Northern Ireland.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Would the hon. Gentleman care to tell the Committee whether he was given any understanding about what the club would be licensed to do? The people of Northern Ireland would be concerned about that since we are not too happy that its object is to maintain Ulster within the United Kingdom. Will the club be licensed to take us out of the United Kingdom?

The Chairman: Before the hon. Gentleman is tempted to answer that, may I point out that we are straying again into the merits of the issue rather than the order in which clauses will be taken.

Rev. Ian Paisley: There has been a good deal of latitude in the Committee, Mr. Weatherill, for other Members not from Northern Ireland. After all, this is the only public forum we have. It is the only opportunity we have to discuss these matters. Far be it from me to try to find a way round your ruling, but I am trying to put the case as to why we should hear first about this clause. Having heard about it from the Secretary of State we can clear our minds.

Mr. Budgen: rose——

Rev. Ian Paisley: I will give way in a moment.
I was of the opinion that the club was to be a licensed club. I will say no more. Knowing the capacity of representatives from the Irish Republic and of other Members for a certain beverage, I thought it was going to be a hail-fellow-well-met thing. As I do not frequent that sort of club either, I am not concerned.

Mr. Budgen: Since the hon. Gentleman no doubt has more extensive research facilities than some of us, can he tell us whether he has heard any denial by the Secretary of State that proposals of this sort are, in the words of the article by Margaret van Hattem, negotiable? Usually, when mistaken journalistic leaks or forays, however one likes to put it, are made, one hears about it from one of the Government's public relations officials. I think I am right in saying that there are 1,500 public relations men within the Government machine and it is usual for one of them to pick up such a mistake. I assume that not all of them are drinking tea all the time. If a scandalous assertion is made it is usually possible for the Minister against whom it is made to deny it immediately. Can the hon. Gentleman tell me whether he has noted any such denial?

The Chairman: I am sorry to keep interrupting the speech of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), but he said just now that there had been a good deal of latitude in this debate. I should remind him that I have on several occasions told the Committee that hon. Members must confine their remarks to the order in which the clauses, new schedules and new clauses are taken. I stress that we must not get into a debate on the merits of any specific new clause, particularly not the one which the hon. Gentleman is being tempted to talk about.

Mr. Gorst: Further to the point of order, Mr Weatherill, is it possible to consider the implications

without discussing the merits? Unless one considers the implications, one does not know where a provision comes in a logical sequence.

The Chairman: That is in order and that is what has happened so far. I am anxious to ensure that we do not go beyond that.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I think, Mr. Weatherill, that you should censure those who led me along different lines rather than censure me. I was only trying to be helpful on queries that were put to me.
What was sold to us by the Government was some sort of club that raised our eyebrows. I put to the Secretary of State and his colleague Lord Gowrie the very question that was put to me by the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth). I asked what the purpose of the club would be. We came to the conclusion that it was to be a friendly, happy-go-lucky sort of place where people exchanged views. The Secretary of State should relieve the minds of the people of Northern Ireland and of hon. Members.
I envisage an outburst of real anger in Northern Ireland if, almost at the end of a long debate—it is evident that there is going to be a long debate in Committee—this clause is accepted by the Government. If they intend to accept the clause, it is their duty to tell us what their mind is generally on the matter. Do they intend to negotiate it, amend it, or keep the principles in it, or, as we understood from the Secretary of State, go back to the old Stormont practice whereby Departments of Government had departmental relationships with departments in the Southern Government but there was no institutionalised Irish dimension? That has always been the position that Unionists have taken on the matter.
7 pm
I view this matter with great seriousness. It lies at the heart of the controversy on the constitution in Northern Ireland. The matter cannot be put under the carpet until a late stage of our discussions. It is essential that this Committee should be given the opportunity to know what is in the mind of the Government. If it is in the mind of the Government to accept the clause the probability that we shall have to put down other amendments arises immediately. We cannot put our arguments if no guidance is to be given by the Government on what is the heart of the matter.
I invite the Secretary of State to clear the air. The right hon. Gentleman says that he wants to help the people of Northern Ireland and that he wants to help the parties in Northern Ireland. His best course would be to issue a clear-cut verdict today on whether he intends to give in on this clause. If the Secretary of State fails to respond, this debate will prove to be a debate in which tempers will rise. Hon. Members will become exasperated. If, at the end of the day, the right hon. Gentleman accepts the clause, he may as well forget about his whole Assembly, the Assembly elections and everything else.
I believe that I speak for all Unionists who are determined that nothing in the Bill will undermine the position of the people of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom and that the Assembly will not be a back door into the Irish Republic. The 1,800 people in the Falkland Islands deserve to be defended but the 1 million people of Northern Ireland who want to remain in this kingdom will, if necessary, defend themselves.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has hearkened to the closing words of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley). It was a weighty threat that the hon. Gentleman delivered. I have no doubt that he carries with him his colleagues in the Democratic Unionist Party. I had thought that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues were among the least lukewarm towards the Assembly that the Bill proposes to bring into existence.
I wish to confine myself strictly to the procedural motion. In general, I find logic in the sequence that the Secretary of State has proposed to the Committee. I am a little surprised, however, that there was no consultation with the parties concerned, particularly the Northern Ireland parties, because this would have smoothed our proceedings. We are anxious to help the Government to improve their legislation. Such consultation can lead to the avoidance of lengthy debate. I have stated that I accept in general the logic of the order. I am, however, puzzled by the place in which it is proposed to take clause 7 of the Bill. I was moreover alarmed when my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) spoke of some kind of agreement between the Government and the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon).

Mr. Budgen: I can help my hon. Friend. I was not saying that there was an agreement. I was saying that authoritative articles had spoken of this point, as one of them put it, being negotiable, and I said that I believe that the support of the Opposition at some future stage might be important to the Secretary of State. I hesitate to use the words of the article in the Financial Times but I wondered whether there would be some horse trading or whether there had been some horse trading. I thought that it would be useful to give the Secretary of State the opportunity to deny it at this late stage if he wished to do so, but that, if he did not, to let the Committee know, so that his decision might inform our debates.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: I say "Amen" to that. I have also heard the words of the hon. Member for Antrim, North. The point can be met in one of two ways. Either the Secretary of State can reassure us, as only he can reassure us, or we could be allowed to change the order and dispose of new clause 4 right away. The new clause would then be removed from the consideration of the Committee, like a sort of bad dream, following which we can wake up and get down to the Bill as a whole.
I cannot believe that there are grounds for these suspicions because the Bill is based on the White Paper.
In paragraph 23 the White Paper states that
The Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Council, which has been established following the Anglo-Irish talks and Joint Studies which began in 1980, gives institutional expression to the unique relationship between the two governments without affecting national sovereignty.
These are important words. The paragraph adds:
It is now for the Parliaments concerned to consider whether the governmental meetings of the Council should be complemented by an Anglo-Irish body at Parliamentary level in which members of the Parliaments of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland could take part.
This is clearly a preposterous clause not requiring much time and not requiring much consideration. It is not for the Assembly to consider how there can be an improvement in relations. It is not proper that the Assembly should seek to improve relations with a sovereign State, the Republic

of Ireland. This is nonsense and preposterous. I understand the suspicions that exist in the breasts of my hon. Friends and Opposition Members. I am sure, however, that all these suspicions can be allayed by the Secretary of State. If he is not able to allay these suspicions, I submit that the order should be changed and that new clause 4 should be taken first and dealt with as it should be dealt with.

Mrs. Jill Knight: My hon. Friend has referred to the White Paper. Has he noticed that paragraph 8 states:
The importance of an agreed and stable system of government in Northern Ireland is becoming increasingly recognised."?
That seems to indicate goodwill on the part of the Government for an agreement. It is therefore all the more astonishing to hear what hon. Members have had to say about lack of any consultation at this stage. I refer them to paragraph 8.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: I am obliged to my hon. Friend——

The Second Deputy Chairman (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. I hope the hon. Gentleman will not go down that road. The hon. Gentleman must relate speech to the order in which we take the proceedings rather than the merits.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: I intend to gallop back up the road to the batting order on the Bill. I am grateful to my hon. Friend because agreement is what the Government need if they are to bring about any useful change in the government of Northern Ireland. Obviously there will not be agreement and good will if there is the slightest suspicion that new clause 4 is taken seriously as suggested, no doubt with malice, in certain organs of the press.
I hope that these suspicions will be removed either by a clear statement from the Secretary of State or by a change in the sequence of business so that hon. Members can dispose of new clause 4 at the outset.

Mr. Gorst: I should like to draw my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that we have not yet had from the Chairman of Ways and Means, as is normal practice, any selection of amendments beyond schedule 1. Consequently, hon. Members do not know for certain whether the Chair will have selected new clause 4, although I suppose it is unlikely that it will not have been selected as it appears in the name of the official Opposition. The Chair has already shown that it goes along with the order by making its selections as far as clause 1 and schedule 1. That is part of what we are debating. Will my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) comment on that?

Sir John Biggs-Davison: Those are matters that are within the purview of the Chair. I would never comment on them. It is not for me to question what amendments or new clauses are selected by the Chair. I do not wish to be drawn into these disorderly courses by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Gorst: I was not suggesting what my hon. Friend thought. Would he not regard it as much more convenient if the Chair could indicate whether new clause 4 would be selected?

Sir John Biggs-Davison: Those words are in the ears of the Chair.
The Secretary of State has power to reassure our troubled hearts and minds. It has been suggested that there


is some kind of understanding that some such provision might be acceptable to the Government. I am sure that that is wrong. I understand the concern of hon. Friends and right hon. and hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies. I suppose that the Secretary of State will explain his choice of the order in which the proceedings are to be taken, and deal with the points that have been raised.

Viscount Cranborne: The House owes a great debt to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) for raising the point that he did. He not only drew attention to the bare bones of the procedural motion but he put a practical gloss on the proceedings. If his request is acceded to it will enable us to make proper and speedy progress.
One of the more unsatisfactory aspects of dealing with legislation arises in Committee. I was privileged to serve on-the Standing Committee on the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Bill. During the course of their consideration of the Bill the Opposition spent many hours on procedural motions—sittings motions, the order in which clauses should be taken and so on. The effect of that action was that when, as inevitably happened, the guillotine fell, we galloped through the remaining clauses of the Bill.

Mr. Budgen: I intervene with great diffidence, but I believe that even the mention of guillotine is most unfortunate. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will feel deeply disturbed at such a suggestion. This is an important constitutional Bill which he will want adequately discussed. It is almost insulting for my hon. Friend to have mentioned the guillotine.

Viscount Cranborne: My hon. Friend's interruption enables me to clear up a point over which I was perhaps confusing the House. I would not dream of implying that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would think of introducing a guillotine for a considerable time. [Interruption.] My right hon. and hon. Friends are anticipating what I was about to say. I hope that my right hon. Friend would not consider such a step in a Bill of such an extraordinarily controversial character. I am always apprehensive when my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West ventures to reprove me in private. When he makes an intervention during the course of remarks I make in the Chamber and reproves me in public I take careful note of what he says.
7.15 pm
It may be that by mentioning the dreaded word "guillotine" I have put something in the Secretary of State's mind which was not there before. I am sure that the possibility had occurred to him and I hope that he rejected it instantly. I mentioned the word "guillotine" in the context of the argument that I was developing at the time. I do not want to stray from the rules of order and the subject of the debate—I am sure that you, Mr. Armstrong, would remind me if I did—but I should like to draw a parallel between what happened during the Committee stage of the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Bill and what may happen now. The Opposition spent many hours discussing various points which were not directly relevant to the substance of the Bill. They talked about sittings motions, for example, before we considered clause 1.

Mr. Gorst: I hope that I am not as sensitive as my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) but the thought that those of us on the Government side of the Committee might indulge in irrelevant discussion in the way the Opposition could be expected to seems a little offensive.

Viscount Cranborne: My hon. Friend always clears me of inadvertently making imputations that would cast aspersions on the capacity of my hon. Friends to stray from the point. My hon. Friend is right to remind me that none of our hon. Friends would dream of introducing irrelevancies into a debate.

Mr. Budgen: My hon. Friend has made a most unfortunate aspersion against the Opposition. The Opposition have made it plain from an early stage that they support the Bill, not by voting for it, but upon terms. One of the advantages of an early consideration of new clause 4 is that if the Opposition do not succeed with the new clause they may realise that the Bill will never be what they want. They may then decide in an honourable and logical way to vote against it. I hope that my hon. Friend does not wish to draw a distinction between our hon. Friends and the Opposition. When the Opposition realise that what they demand as a condition can never be met they will take the honourable step of opposing the Bill.

Viscount Cranborne: My hon. Friend has once again done me a service by making the point far more succinctly and effectively than I could. He is right. I was merely recalling for the benefit of the Committee the behaviour of the Opposition on the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Bill.
I regret that the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) and his colleagues who represent the views of the Opposition on Northern Ireland were not fortunate enough to be selected for service on that Committee. I can say without fear of contradiction by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, since he did not serve on the Committee either, that the Opposition's behaviour at that time precluded proper discussion of the Bill.
The Opposition spent so much time at the beginning of the Committee stage on matters that were not directly relevant to the substance of the Bill that the Government were forced, after many hours of debate, to introduce a guillotine to get their business. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West reacts with horror at the mention of the word "guillotine", but I do not apologise for using it, because I wish to stress that if we want to make proper progress and to make sure that the Government have the opportunity to take their business in a logical order we must consider not only the order in which the clauses are taken, but the practical consequences of the order in which they are considered.
That is why I said that my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West had done the Committee a service. As has been amply demonstrated by the comments of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), if my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is unable to lay this hare at the beginning of our proceedings it wll raise so many doubts and worries in the minds of the Committee that he may find that the reasonable progress that he could have expected will not be made.

Mr. Farr: I have been listening to my hon. Friend with rapt attention and I agree that it is critical that our right


hon. Friend the Secretary of State should lay to rest the concern felt by my right hon. and hon. Friends about new clause 4.
However, my hon. Friend has raised another hare during his excellent speech. If we are to have sensible, meaningful and harmonious discussions on the Bill, as we all hope that we shall, my right hon. Friend must give another undertaking as soon as possible. He must seize an early opportunity to lay to rest any suggestion that there will be a guillotine on the Bill. It is important to get that crystal clear if we are to have constructive, useful and harmonious discussions on a matter that is critical not only for Northern Ireland, but for the whole United Kingdom.

Viscount Cranborne: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. I should be trespassing on your good nature, Mr. Armstrong, if I pursued my hon. Friend down that road, but I am sure that his remarks have been noted and inwardly digested in the proper quarter.

Mr. Budgen: Discussions are going on behind the Chair. Perhaps an agreement has been reached.

Viscount Cranborne: I should be grateful if my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West would curb his natural excitement at what he sees, though you, Mr. Armstrong, are unable to see it, and the implications of that prospect.
It is important for us to take new clause 4 first, so that our proceedings can continue with due expedition. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is a Unionist. After all, he and I have the privilege of belonging to the Conservative and Unionist Party. I know that some of my hon. Friends throw up their hands in horror at mention of the word "guillotine", but we should be even more justified in throwing up our hands in horror at the suggestion that the Conservative Party is no longer a Unionist party. That suggestion was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, but I hope that it was in a spirit of sarcasm, which, I remind him, is generally regarded in cliches as being the lowest form of wit and one which the House does not normally associate with him.

Mr. Budgen: I assure my hon. Friend that my comments were made in that spirit. I agree that sarcasm is the lowest form of wit and I apologise.

Viscount Cranborne: I feel that I am not one who should receive apologies from my hon. Friend. As always, he speaks with a grace and elegance which I should do well to try to emulate.
I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will forgive me for alluding to a conversation that we had several months ago in which he emphasised that he was still a Unionist. I have considerable respect for my right hon. Friend and I believe that he felt that that assertion was consistent with the Bill and the White Paper that preceded it.
However, paragraph 23 of the White Paper and the silence that my right hon. Friend has maintained throughout our debate, which seems to have centred increasingly on the matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, give rise to some legitimate questions in the minds of true Unionists and, if I dare say it in the presence of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), Loyalists as well.
Those legitimate questions centre on whether the Bill will strengthen or weaken the Union. One of my principal reasons for disliking the Bill is that I take issue with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State——

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The Committee is discussing the order in which clauses should be taken. The hon. Gentleman must not go too wide of that.

Viscount Cranborne: Thank you, Mr. Armstrong. I shall endeavour to follow your guidance as always. I was merely trying to point out to the Committee that the doubts about whether the Bill will weaken the Union are such that, unless they are laid to rest by a satisfactory consideration of new clause 4 at the beginning of our proceedings, our discussion in Committee will not go as smoothly or as well as all of us would like.
7.30 pm
The strength or otherwise of the Union is central to whether the Bill will go smoothly. I therefore urge my right hon. Friend to give us an opportunity at the earliest possible date to examine this matter. We have an opportunity to examine it in new clause 4 which is already on the Notice Paper. That is a reasonable request. I hope that those who arrange these matters will, with their customary expedition and understanding and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) said, with the sensitivity that we expect, revise their initial conclusions to enable us at least to consider a point which is of crucial importance to all of us in debating Northern Ireland.

Mr. Stanbrook: I support what has been said about the proposals. Indeed, all the speeches so far have bee n critical of the Secretary of State's proposals for the order in which business will be taken. I can understand the difficulties. Perhaps the Secretary of State said something in commendation of his proposals while I was briefly out of the Chamber. I am obliged to my right hon. Friend for indicating that he did not. We have heard no speech in support of the proposals. Therefore, we do not know the grounds on which the proposals have been placed in this order. If we did know, it might help us to decide whether to support them. The fundamental difficulty is that the Bill does not stand by itself and justify itself in its wording. It amends legislation passed by the House in 1973. Since the Bill consists of amendments to machinery created almost 10 years ago, the order in which the business is to be taken requires justification. I have studied the recommende order in which the proceedings are to be taken. I cannot see the logic of that order. It may be that there is no one system or obvious logic about it. For that reason, it is a pity that we have not had the benefit of the Secretary of State's words of support for his proposed order.
If one were to try to assist the Government in this respect, one would, of necessity, have to examine those parts of the Bill that appear to be so fundamental to its merits that they ought really to be considered first and to have priority. Our attention is drawn immediately to the new clauses, especially new clause 4. That was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen). It is not the only new clause but it is the most important one. It deals with relations between this country and the Republic of Ireland. A grew deal of history, constitutional matters and other aspects of


law are involved. If the new clause were debated it would no doubt require a great deal of time. New clause 4 also introduces into the discussion the so-called "Irish dimension" which is highly controversial and which, I believe, has no place in legislation for Northern Ireland but to which the Opposition appear to have committed themselves with regard to any support that they might wish to give to the Bill. It is fundamental to the Bill and should be considered at an earlier stage than that proposed by the Secretary of State.

Mr. Gorst: It might meet my hon. Friend's worries if clause 5, which provides for the dissolution of the Assembly if it is in the public interest that the Assembly should be dissolved, were put in a different order and came at the beginning of the Bill. Would that reassure him if he felt that what was proposed could be quickly dissolved, particularly if anything happened under new clause 4? Would he not feel reassured that the Government's heart was in the right place?

Mr. Stanbrook: I can see the merits of that proposal, although it appears odd to start a Bill by considering the circumstances under which the point and purpose of it could be dispensed with. That would occur if the Assembly which the Bill purports to set up were to be dissolved. I appreciate my hon. Friend's point. This is a matter of fundamental significance to the Bill and to the Government's policy in relation to Northern Ireland and, therefore, should be considered earlier in the order of consideration of the Bill than has been proposed.
New clause 4 is not the only clause that introduces fundamental subjects for consideration that should be considered much earlier in the Bill. New clause 1 is fundamental to the issue, yet it comes far down the order proposed by the Secretary of State.
New clause 1 puts before the Committee the issue of devolution and the practical problems of devolution. The new clause raises the West Lothian question. This arises under all provisions for devolved government in the United Kingdom which remove from the jurisdiction of the House and the jurisdiction of individual hon. Members questions relating to a part of the United Kingdom with a devolved Assembly that will have the right to determine matters without further reference to this House. There was much discussion during the debates on Welsh and Scottish devolution some years ago about how to solve the West Lothian question. It is a great stumbling block. There is no remedy for it. One must accept the problem and accept that under a system of devolved government for part of the United Kingdom the powers of the House will be limited.
This matter is without precedent in our constitutional history and we should not approve it without the most convincing reasons. New clause 1 is not only fundamental to the Bill but fundamental to the relationship between the United Kingdom and any part of it which might, by any system of devolution proposed in any Bill, provide for devolved government and therefore the exclusion of certain questions from this House because they are reserved for the other Assembly. The whole matter is so confusing that new clause 1 should be considered first. The West Lothian question should be before us. I am sorry that the Government appear to have no solution to that.
New clause 2 tabled by the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) is also of fundamental importance. It is entitled
Saving for the supreme authority of the Parliament of the United Kingdom.
That is of importance because the Bill purports to confer upon a separate subordinate legislative Assembly for a part of the United Kingdom powers which, if not in constitutional theory, in practical effect, may mean that the supreme authority of this Parliament is diminished. Surely none of us is prepared to accept that either in principle or in practice.
New clause 2 puts into words a principle that should not be touched. That is as fundamental as a Northern Ireland Bill that begins by stating that there shall be no change in the constitutional arrangements for Northern Ireland except with the consent of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland. Governments always see fit to put that at the beginning of Northern Ireland legislation. The assertion of the supreme authority of this Parliament should be at the beginning of such legislation.
For those reasons, I do not see the logic of the Secretary of State's proposals for the order in which the provisions should be debated. Subject to anything that he might say to justify the order, I doubt whether I shall be able to support it.

Mr. Richard Body: The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) is the Liberal spokesman on Northern Ireland affairs. We are delighted that he has returned after a long absence. We hope that he is fit enough to play an active part in the Committee's deliberations. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will respond to the question about which parties were consulted. I say that deliberately because I was in the United States in March last year when the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) and the hon. Member for Isle of Wight were there. Our paths did not cross, but I saw them on television and elsewhere arguing cogently their stance on Northern Ireland affairs. Out of respect for what they have done for Britain in the United States in expressing a bipartisan policy, I should have thought that they would be consulted by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I hope that we will be given a clue about what has been said recently.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) aroused our suspicions. When suspicion enters, love goes out. I have no love for the Bill, although I have a warm affection for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I am disappointed that he has not enlarged upon the reasons for the motion. I am moved now to be suspicious about every clause and every word in the Bill. Those suspicions were aroused initially when I heard that the proposals in the White Paper and the Bill were approved by—of all Cabinet Committees—the Overseas and Defence Committee. That says it all. [Laughter.] The right hon. Member for Mansfield may laugh. Perhaps he is opening the door to even more suspicions. We are concerned about the new clause. It might have been discussed by the Overseas and Defence Committee because it is concerned with the Republic of Ireland. If the right hon. Gentleman laughs, our suspicions are doubled.

Mr. Molyneaux: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Overseas and Defence Committee might have been


distracted from the weighty considerations of the Bill by the more pressing problems building up in the South Atlantic?

Mr. Body: The hon. Gentleman underlines the problem cogently.
Of course, the United States and the Republic of Ireland are entitled to express an opinion about what should happen in Northern Ireland. We should listen to what they say, but the decision about what should be done should be made not by the Overseas and Defence Committee, but by a Committee which is concerned with the internal and constitutional affairs of this country. That is how these things work and where the decision should have been made before the Bill came to the House.
I hope that before the debate on the procedural motion is concluded and we vote on it the Secretary of State will reply and deal with the serious ground for suspicion provoked originally by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West. I do not have to explain to my right hon. Friend that we are dealing with the future of a terrorist-stricken province. We have to guard our words and deeds carefully lest those minded to resort to terrorism are encouraged to do more of their filthy work. It is desperately important for the security of Northern Ireland that we have an explanation from my right hon. Friend about our fears.
Until then, I shall suspect every manoeuvre connected with the Bill, including the procedural motion, because that is in itself a manoeuvre. It is not just a procedural motion. Procedure is important for one powerful reason. Freedom lies deep in the interstices of procedure. We must get it right. We cannot get it right until we make it fair. It will not be fair unless minority views can be expressed.
This procedural motion is intrinsically curious. We shall be called upon to settle schedules 1 and 2 before we examine clauses 3 to 6, schedule 2 and the subsequent new clauses and new schedules. So we have to settle schedules 1 and 2 before we examine the new clauses. I wish to draw attention to two items. The first is perhaps of lesser importance. It is the table of constituencies that is contained in paragraph 11 of schedule 2. It shows how many Members of the Assembly will come from each parliamentary constituency. Ten will come from South Antrim, and rightly so, because it is the largest and most important of the Northern Ireland constituencies, and only four will come from West Belfast. The table is clear enough, and at this stage none of us seeks to amend it in any way.
However, new clause 10 proposes 68 instead of 78 Members. If that were accepted, it would be difficult for us to accept the table in schedule 2. I appreciate that new clause 10 has not yet been selected, because of course, we have only the provisional selection of the Chair, and "provisional" means what it says. We must assume that there will be a subsequent selection, and new clause 10 may be added. The Committee would then be in appalling difficulty. We should not be able to discuss new clause 10 if we had already disposed of schedule 2. We should be making a nonsense of the Bill. It would not be orderly—it would be distinctly disorderly. Moreover, it would be strikingly stupid.
The second item to which I draw attention is paragraph 4(2) of schedule 1, which is of fundamental importance. If I understand it aright, it deals with the famous West Lothian question. It says:

It is hereby declared for the avoidance of doubt"—
I want to stress that phrase—
that the Assembly may, as part of its power to legislate for the specified matters, pass Measures appropriating moneys for the services administered by the specified department or charging sums on, or providing for the payment of sums into, the Consolidated Fund of Northern Ireland in respect of the specified matters.
That is very clear. It concerns what one might describe as the sovereignty of this House.
Those of us who are anxious about the West Lothian question, and who remember how it troubled our debates on devolution for Scotland and Wales and, as many say, caused the downfall of the devolution measure for Scotland, wonder how we are to reconcile it with new clause 2, which is a clause of enormous importance It stands in the names of the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneux), his right hon. and hon. Friends. It seeks to resolve the West Lothian question. It says:
Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the supreme authority of the Parliament of the United Kingdom shall remain unaffected and undiminished over all persons, matters and things in Northern Ireland and every part thereof'.
Nothing could be clearer than that. It seeks to resolve the West Lothian question. But how can we reconcile it with the part of schedule 1 which we are called upon to dispose of before we deal with the new clauses and which, ironically, contains the phrase
for the avoidance of doubt"?
It is ridiculous. In schedule 1 we are seeking to avoid doubt, yet the biggest doubt of all will be created unless we end the dispute and difficulties involved in the West Lothian question.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: I am trying to follow my hon. Friend's persuasive argument, but I do not understand how new clause 2 will resolve the West Lothian question.

Mr. Body: Perhaps we should argue about that later, and it is something that I think we shall have to argue. I do not want to deal with the merits of the new clause, and I should be out of order if I were to do so. I have mentioned it because, as I understand it, it is an attempt to bring to an end any difficulties that may arise from the West Lothian question. It manifestly declares that this House is sovereign and that anything that this House decides must prevail over any decision of the Assembly. If that provision were passed, we should be in great difficulty with schedule 1, which of course would already have been disposed of.

Mr. Budgen: Perhaps the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) can help the Committee in this connection. I remember that when we started our interesting and ultimately successful discussion of the Scotland and Wales Bill, there was a preliminary clause which was very similar to new clause 2. It said that all that followed was not to affect either the unity of the kingdom or the sovereignty of this Parliament—or words to that effect. I used to sit behind the right hon. Gentleman, and I remember shouting out in my rough way "A mere preliminary puff' as the debate proceeded. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will confirm that. Perhaps I was wrong to suggest that only new clause 4 should be debated earlier, and that we should also debate new clause 2. After all, that would set what I am sure my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would agree would be the useful precedent of the Scotland and Wales Bill.

Mr. Body: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. In fact, I filched from those debates an amendment which was tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan), now Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who led for the Opposition in those devolution debates. As one would expect, he drafted an admirable clause. I have filched it, and I hope that it will be in the Table Office before the evening is out. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West will add his name to it, and thus give it distinction and respectability.
In the debate we are laying the foundations for our deliberations for the rest of the evening or for however long it is before we dispose of the Committee stage. Edmund Burke said:
Good order is the foundation of all good things.
I cannot see how we are making good order out of our proceedings as a result of the procedural motion. I shall be of that persuasion until my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State responds to the debate, as I hope he will, answers some of the points and gives some positive reasons, because so far we have had none from him.

8 pm

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. James Prior): I am willing to reply to the debate at a suitable time, but I thought that it might be wise to hear hon. Members' views first.

Mr. Body: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I assumed that he would reply. We know his courtesy and expect him to reply. I am grateful to him for confirming that he will do so.
There is another reason why I suggest that we are not proceeding in an orderly way. It is possible that we shall not finish the Committee stage this evening. We may have another evening. I hope that we will not take too long. Obviously we shall not have another evening until after the recess. Therefore, in the recess we shall have opportunities to consider the Bill in greater detail. We shall set our minds to it. We shall spend some time on it and we shall reflect on clauses 1 and 2 and schedule 1.
I have a hunch, in view of some of the comments that have been made, that we shall think of a number of defects in the Bill that must be put right. Therefore, when we come back after the recess I have a feeling that some more amendments will be tabled for the Chair to consider, so that the Chairman's provisional selection may be extended. If that is to come about, we must be particularly careful about the order in which we deal with the amendments.
We shall have to deal with schedule 1 before we deal with clauses 3 to 6. There are a number of matters to be considered. I do not wish to deal with them, or to argue their merits. That would only take time and I am conscious that we have debated the issue for a while already.
When we examine clauses 3 to 6 during the recess we shall see that a number of amendments should be tabled, which we hope will be selected. Those amendments will affect schedule 1. However, by that time we shall have disposed of schedule 1. That will add greater difficulties to making sense of the Bill. Whether we like the wretched thing or not, at least we hope that it will make sense at the end of our proceedings. As a result of the motion we will be prevented from tabling those amendments unless my right hon. Friend or the managers of the business of the

House are willing to have plenty of time on Report, when we may be forced to tidy up and put right mistakes that we have made as a result of the procedural motion.
The other matter that I hope my right hon. Friend will bear in mind is that, as the debates go on, it is just conceivable that, because my right hon. Friend has an open mind on these matters, he will be persuaded that changes are needed in Northern Ireland, which would extend local government. He has not yet—no doubt he will in due course—referred to the opinion poll that gave the impression that the Bill was supported. It may be that what the opinion poll is saying to the Government and to the House is that people want a greater say in matters such as education and transport, which are local government matters. We hope that before our deliberations on the Bill are completed we will have persuaded the Government that it is necessary to restore local government powers to where they belong so that Northern Ireland may be treated in the same way as Scotland or Wales, or even England, as some Conservative and Opposition Members would wish. We shall be prevented from moving those amendments if in the meantime we have proceeded on the lines of the procedural motion.
Therefore, there are three substantial reasons why we should reject the motion and continue with the Bill in the ordinary way. With respect to my right hon. Friend, I remind him of what St. Paul said to the Corinthians:
Let all things be done decently and in order.
Even if we have an indecently obnoxious Bill, please let us try to deal with it in good order.

Mrs. Knight: I make it clear that it is not part of my intention to delay the deliberations on the Bill. In his post, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, for whom I have great respect and admiration, is on a bed of nails and I do not seek to throw upon him a quilt of tacks. Nonetheless, by now he must be well aware of the worries in the minds of many of us who oppose the Bill. I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends dislike opposing the Government as much as I do. The opposition is coming genuinely from deep worries about the Bill. The more I hear about it, the more worried I am.
I suggest that it would be a good analogy to consider the question of the order in which the proceedings are being taken as if a traveller were setting out on a journey. He arrives at a crossroads and finds that the road ahead is narrow, dark and full of shadows. There are bends, pitfalls and all sorts of blockages. It would not be out of order to suggest that no traveller would wish to travel many miles down a road and find such a blockage across the road that prevented him from going further and forced him to return. I do not seek to make a long speech. Therefore, I shall refer only to one of the new clauses. I sincerely believe that new clause 4 can be cast in the role of a blockage.
If we go down the road of the examination of the Bill in Committee and stumble over new clause 4, that will cause the greatest possible difficulties. Worse than that, those who have voted for the Bill so far along the road might find that, when they consider all the implications of new clause 4, they would not have voted that way and would have taken a different course. New clause 4 is fraught with reasons to be suspicious. I am absolutely in agreement that it would be extremely desirable to improve relations between any groups of people, between any Assemblies and Parliaments. I am not against improving relations between this mythical Assembly and the


Republic of Ireland. The problem is that we do not know how it will be decided what is necessary to be done to improve relations.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: Surely it is improper to suggest that this Assembly should be desirous of improving relations with the Republic of Ireland. That is a matter of United Kingdom foreign policy. My hon. Friend's suspicions have even greater foundation than she suggests.

Mrs. Knight: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That is another facet of new clause 4 that worries me. It is an issue that is bound to arise when we discuss the powers that the Assembly will have. It seems that these decisions will not be taken democratically, and that is the feature that makes the Bill such an appalling minefield. Decisions on how to proceed will not be taken as we take them in the House of Commons, and I find that deeply offensive. I also find it reason to be suspicious. That is the sort of worry that is in the minds of so many hon. Members about the way in which we are proceeding with our work on the Bill.

Mr. K. Harvey Proctor: These are my first words on the Bill. At the outset I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for the courtesy that he has shown to the Committee by being in his place throughout the entire debate. I hope that his presence throughout all our discussions on the Bill will be similarly attentive.
We may find ourselves in difficulties with the motion because of the speed with which my right hon. Friend moved it. It was almost through the House before we had blinked. It is with humility that I tender some advice to my right hon. Friend. It might have been rather better if he had made an opening speech to set out his reasons for introducing the motion and changing the normal order of discussing a Bill. The Committee's progress might have been facilitated had he done so. As right hon. and hon. Members have intimated, no reasons have so far been advanced—not even by way of intervention—why we should have a procedural motion. That accounts for the attitude of hon. Members in Committee. My right hon. Friend must not be too surprised by the feelings that have been expressed so far.
The first question that I must ask my right hon. Friend is why the Government should propose to depart from the normal order of consideration, which is line by line and clause by clause. It is important that we discover the reason for that. Secondly, what consultation, if any, took place before he decided to table the motion? That could be important subsequently and might facilitate progress. It will help if we know the channels of communication and consultation that my right hon. Friend is proposing to use in tabling motions and considering amendments.

Mr. Body: Perhaps my hon. Friend will agree that on this occasion we should consider the unusual channels as well as the usual channels. They may have some influence on our proceedings.

Mr. Proctor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am rather innocent about any channels and whether they are usual or unusual. I take the common sense view that

probably I would not be included in either. I hear what my hon. Friend has to say, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend hears what we have to say.

Mr. Gorst: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind when making his plea to my right hon. Friend that there are no channels? There is the division across the Floor of the House. There is an Irish Channel in the Opposition Benches and there is an Irish Channel in the Government Benches. Apart from that there are many ebbs, flows and tides among Conservative Back Benchers. When my hon. Friend is discussing the order in which we shall consider the clauses, he should bear in mind that the "usual channels" should be very unusual.

Mr. Proctor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Before I answer the substantive part of his intervention I should say that there is not an Irish Channel between us. There is the St. George's Channel, and that being so my hon. Friend was not quite accurate in his geographical designation of what breaks Northern Ireland geographically, but not in a national, political or constitutional sense, from the rest of the United Kingdom.
Several political parties are represented in the House and when we discuss Northern Ireland matters the political parties are fairly clearly defined. Certainly they should form part of the consultations. A sizeable number of Conservative Members feel that they should be consulted in some form. The Back Bench Conservative committee on Northern Ireland affairs might be the appropriate forum in which to discuss these matters. It has already been said in an intervention that that has not occurred. That was my criticism of my right hon. Friend which, no doubt, he will take note of and correct in due course.
In listening to the debate I have wondered why there has been no support for the motion. That is a question that I cannot answer. However, not one word has been said in favour of it even by the official Opposition.

Mr. Budgen: May I remind my hon. Friend that we had the same unhappy performance on Second Reading.? I do not remember anyone from the Tory Benches coming forward to make a sustained case for the Government's proposals.

Mrs. Knight: There were two.

Mr. Budgen: Every other speech from the Government Benches was opposed to the measure, and, when one thinks of the prospect of the Tory Party being in power for the next decade, one would have thought that there would have been some helpful speeches from able and ambitious men.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. We are getting a long way from the motion that is before the Committee.

Mr. Proctor: I am not an ambitious man, but I take my hon. Friend's point. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has heard it too.
I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will give the Committee some good reasons as to why he put forward the procedure motion. I live in hope to be convinced by my right hon. Friend—faith, hope and charity—on this matter. This has been a productive debate. As a relative newcomer to the House, I found the debate worthwhile if only for the speech of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) about the


distinction between the order of new clauses in Committee and on Report. That was interesting, informative and educative to a new Member.
In an attempt to be helpful to my right hon. Friend I commend to him that he should consider what has occurred in other Committees. I have the honour to serve on the Mental Health (Amendment) Bill which seeks to amend the Mental Health Act 1979. That is an interesting and complex subject, as this is, and it refers back to other legislation. The Ministers on that Committee kindly agreed at the outset of the deliberations to provide the Committee with the briefing notes that are available to Ministers clause by clause. That has facilitated progress on the Bill, as the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) knows, and a more informed discussion is taking place. The same would apply to this Committee and I commend that practical proposition to speed up progress on the Bill. I hope that my right hon. Friend will respond to that in the spirit in which I have put it forward.
I said at the outset that I would return to the form of consultation about the order of the clauses. Were the individual Northern Ireland parties consulted? Was the Ulster Unionist Party consulted? From an earlier intervention, it would appear not. Were the Democratic Unionists consulted? From a similar intervention, it would appear not. Were the Liberal Party and the SDP, which regrettably are not represented tonight in this important debate, consulted? Was the official Opposition consulted about the arrangement of clauses and schedules that have been placed before us in this procedural motion? The answers to those questions will be helpful to the Committee in making progress.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West spoke about the position of new clause 4 in the order of debate and especially about its importance to the rest of the Bill and the need to have clarification of it. I shall not weary the Committee by re-reading the full text of the crucial amendment put down by the official Opposition, which pinpoints the Irish dimension in this legislation. The Irish dimension is a principal reason why many of my right hon. and hon. Friends are so opposed to what we are proposing.

Mr. Gorst: There have been many references to bringing forward new clause 4 for the purpose of discussion. May I put it to my hon. Friend, and through him to others, that to do so now when the Irish Government are not very popular in Britain might be a political timing which would embarrass the Government if they wished to accept the amendment. It may be politically desirable for the Government to keep the matter away for a few weeks or months until we reach that point in the Bill.

Mr. Proctor: I recently put down a question to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister about the Irish dimension and neutrality and she, speaking with the full authority of the Government, made it clear that she was disappointed and dismayed by the attitude of the Irish Government. I shall come to the point whether it would be better to put off the matter because of what has happened in the Falkland Islands or whether it is better to deal with it now.

Mr. Budgen: I intervene only to give my hon. Friend an opportunity to think for a moment. My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) made an absolutely monstrous suggestion. Everybody understands that when the Secretary of State considered the Irish dimension he knew perfectly well that the Republic of Ireland was, and is, a neutral State which might have a foreign policy distinct from our own. He entered into considerations of an Irish dimension fully aware of that.
The consequences of what has happened in the last couple of weeks were foreseeable at any time and it is absolutely illusory to pretend that any sensible, imaginative statesman could say that the whole thing came as an embarrassing surprise. I am sure that my right hon. Friend would not put forward that argument. I hope that my hon. Friend will dispose of the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North with all the vigour and force at his command.

Mr. Proctor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I did not do as my hon. Friend bid me because I wanted to remain within order in this debate on a tight procedural matter. I was seeking to be of assistance to the Chair by not being led down that path, however much I agree with my hon. Friend. It was a self-denying ordinance imposed upon myself, something I always do when I speak in the House.
I believe that there is a more immediate way of disposing of new clause 4—even more immediate than any proposed change to the procedural motion might be. Fortunately, we have with us my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and also the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) who tabled new clause 4. We have in the Chamber the two participants who will have the greatest say in these matters.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West enticed the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley) to intervene in his speech to say that there had been no negotiations with the Government on new clause 4. Unfortunately, at that time the right hon. Member for Mansfield was not in the Chamber. We could dispose of at least one side of this equation on new clause 4 and thus speed progress on the Bill if I could urge the right hon. Member for Mansfield similarly to agree that no negotiations or deals have taken place on the acceptance by the Government of new clause 4. I shall be happy to give way to the right hon. Gentleman if he wishes to reinforce what his hon. Friend said earlier.
It seems that the right hon. Gentleman is not going to intervene. That is cause for considerable concern. But that is only one side of the equasion.

Mr. Farr: rose——

Mr. Proctor: I am conducting a litmus test and I shall be happy to give way to my hon. Friend when I have completed the second part of it. The red paper did not turn blue.

Mr. Budgen: It turns to green.

Mr. Proctor: As always, I am grateful for sedentary interventions by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West.
I now apply the test to my right hon. Friend. I am delighted to see him in the Chamber and I have already paid tribute to the fact that he has been here throughout the


debate. Can he give an assurance that the Government have not had negotiations, talks, or behind-the-Chair assignations, on new clause 4? What is the attitude of the Government on new clause 4? Again, I shall gladly give way if my right hon. Friend seeks to intervene.

Mr. Prior: I am waiting to speak. If my hon. Friend sits down I shall begin my speech.

Mr. Proctor: I am concious of the fact that if I sit down my right hon. Friend will still not be able to speak. I renew the invitation to my right hon. Friend to dispose of this point as it has taken up a considerable time.

Mr. Prior: My hon. Friend will have to control his patience, as I have.

Mr. Proctor: We shall all control our patience, or impatience, until my right hon. Friend can make his speech after one or two other of my hon. Friends have sought to catch your eye, Mr. Weatherill.

Mr. Farr: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. The Committee will understand my right hon. Friend's reluctance to say anything at this time. After all, he was not the architect of new clause 4. I hope that it has not escaped my hon. Friend's notice that the architect of the new clause has been reluctant to intervene. His name is at the top of the list of those appearing on the Amendment Paper. He is now in his place, although he was not present earlier when the matter was initially raised. He is reluctant to comment on my hon. Friend's suggestion, and therefore the Committee must draw its own conclusion.

Mr. Proctor: As always, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention, and for underlining the litmus test that I endeavoured to carry out. I understand my right hon. Friend's reluctance to intervene because he has not had the opportunity of hearing the arguments that have been put forward. As a result, he may wish to reserve his position.
Obviously, we have been unable to dispose of this matter, and that could easily have been done had the right hon. Member for Mansfield intervened. That underlines the concern that all hon. Members who have spoken feel about new clause 4 and the Irish dimension. It underlines everything that my hon. Friends have said about the placing of its debate within our proceedings.

Mr. Body: Perhaps my hon. Friend will bear in mind what the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) said. The Northern Ireland newspapers will be publishing this debate tomorrow morning and they will soon be going to bed. It is important that we have a Front Bench assurance that there has been no collusion about new clause 4. Otherwise an adverse inference will be drawn in the Northern Ireland newspapers if we are not careful.

Mr. Proctor: My hon. Friend is quite right. This is a serious matter. I do not know what the deadlines are for the newspapers and other media of Northern Ireland, but I have tried my best to help the Committee by directing the question to the two participants—the architect and my right hon. Friend who should be the demolition expert. The demolition experts on the new clause should be occupying the Front Bench and should not have to rely on the demolition of new clause 4 as a result of pressure from the Back Benchers.
An onlooker might feel that we were making heavy weather of this matter—[Hors. MEMBERS: "Not at all."]—but he would be uninformed. This brief debate Las demonstrated the great strength of feeling, interest and concern with regard to Northern Ireland, the Bill and what we are about. I hope that my right hon. Friend will reassure all those hon. Members who have spoken with one voice that there is nothing about which we should be concerned.

Mr. William Ross: I am always fascinated by the procedures of the House. I was fascinated by the first debate on the money resolution. If you, Mr. Weatherill, like the rest of us, had been present during the short debate that has followed, you would have been enthralled, as have we all, by the remarkable attention that has been given to the Secretary of State's proposed batting order.
You would also have been made clearly aware, Mr. Weatherill, of the deep anxiety that is apparently felt on both sides of the House, especially on the Tory Back Benches, and you would have heard the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) draw attention to the licence that could result from freedoms given by new clause 4.
The matter is extremely serious. The short debate will not thoroughly explore all the problems that have been touched upon. We may have an opportunity to return to them. We should examine the implications of some of the other new clauses. Many hon. Members have dwelt on new clause 4. If we are to discuss the batting order we should examine other new clauses. Many of them are important. Perhaps they should be brought forward so that their contents can be examined before we proceed. New clause 4 contains the implications of what may flow from continuing talks with a country that claims territory over which British sovereignty runs. We have witnessed the results of that recently and are suffering from it. We may suffer more in the future.
I am appalled at the suggestion that we should send people to a cosy club and give them a licence to extend what they talk about into quarters in which they should not meddle. That could be dangerous for the constitutional position of Northern Ireland. Nor do I like the implications of new clause 3. It, too, should be sorted out early during the Committee stage. It has been tabled by the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon). It gives the Secretary of State power to appoint a presiding officer. It says that he may or may not be a member of the Assembly. In the days of the convention, we were perfectly prepared to accept the Lord Chief Justice being appointed as presiding officer. He was a highly respected member of the Northern Ireland community. But that body was quite different from the one that is proposed here. The Lord Chief Justice was a popular choice. He was welcome in the chair and did an excellent job. We are not in that ball game today. The appointment of, or even the possibility of appointing, a non-elected person as presiding officer is a dangerous path to tread.
Not many weeks ago there was a short debate about whether a non-elected Member should occupy the Chair in this House. The House, for the procedures of which we all have the greatest respect, firmly decided that that was completely wrong. The motion to make that change was thrown out. One might say that it never touched the ground. If there is to be an elected body in Northern Ireland, it is essential that we adhere to the normal


convention that a presiding officer is also subject to the rule of the ballot box. We should be vary chary of going down any other road.
8.45 pm
Those of us who sit in this House have great respect and increasing admiration for its conventions and procedures. If we are to proceed in an orderly fashion in any Northern Ireland Assembly—many hon. Members have commented in your absence, Mr. Weatherill, on the need to do that—we should accept as the basis for orderly proceedings that which obtains here. There should be a clear understanding that the Secretary of State will not accept anything so daft as the proposal contained in new clause 3. That certainly needs to be cleared up. After all, the people of Northern Ireland will be voting for the folk whom they wish to attend to their affairs. They will want people whom they trust to direct the affairs of Northern Ireland. That being so, it is only reasonable that those elected should pick their own presiding officer.
Presiding officers are many and varied. In this House, Mr. Speaker presides in the Chamber and there are many Chairmen of Committees. They all have their own attributes and ways of carrying out their duties, and they are all accepted by Members of Parliament because we know their merits and their standing in the House and we are prepared to accept their rule. Generally speaking, we all have such respect for all of them that their slightest word is our command.
The people of Northern Ireland should not be treated as though they were less able than we are to find from among themselves men or women capable of acting as presiding officers. In the past, I served on a council in Northern Ireland of which the chairman was a lady. Perhaps I should say "chairwoman" or "chairperson" in modern language. She did a very good job. Over the years, I served under many chairmen and was impressed with most of them. Those who do not impress do not last long. I see no reason to suppose that things would be any different in a Northern Ireland Assembly. A presiding officer appointed by fellow members of the Assembly could, of course, be removed by them. If the Secretary of State declined to remove someone who was unacceptable, we should be in very deep water.
The Secretary of State should give an undertaking that new clause 3 will not be accepted. It should be brought forward to a very early stage in our proceedings and disposed of as soon as possible, so that we shall not be troubled by it any more than we hope to be troubled again by new clause 4.

Mr. Gorst: Would it be acceptable to the hon. Gentleman, as a compromise, if the Secretary of State agreed to take just new clause 4 at an earlier stage, so as to satisfy the widespread views expressed on both sides, and to take the rest of the new clauses later?

Mr. Ross: Yes, I would be prepared to go along with the hon. Gentleman's suggestion. I appreciate that he is suggesting that all these new clauses will have to be taken one by one and debated in detail so that we know exactly what the Government thinking is. We could then point out to the Secretary of State the shortcomings that are so evident to all hon. Members. I and my hon. Friends would certainly be prepared to look sympathetically at the suggestion that has been made.
New clause 2 seems to have been causing some difficulty to one or two right hon. and hon. Members. It stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux), my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and myself. It reads:
Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the supreme authority of the Parliament of the United Kingdom shall remain unaffected and undiminished over all persons, matters and things in Northern Ireland and every part thereof.".
Some people seem to be curious as to why that new clause appeared. I should like to set their minds at rest. We were concerned because such a provision was not there. I think that it is the first time that such a clause has not appeared in the several similar pieces of legislation that have appeared, or been attempted, for Northern Ireland. For instance, in the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973, section 4(4) says:
This section does not affect the power of the Parliament of the United Kingdom to make laws for Northern Ireland".
It appeared previously in the 1920 Act and in many of the Acts for different colonies that have received self-government down the years. I was concerned that we could not find it in the Bill.
The problem is that the present Bill continually refers back to the 1974 Act, which in turn refers back to the 1973 Act. It is like going through a maze to find out precisely what is being talked about here.

The Chairman: Order. Before we go too far in discussing every clause, I must repeat that we are concerned at this moment only with the order in which they are taken.

Mr. Ross: I appreciate that, Mr. Weatherill, but I am trying to draw the attention of the Secretary of State to the fact that many right hon. and hon. Members believe that he is taking the clauses in the wrong order. I am drawing attention to the great difficulties that we all experience whenever we try to get clear in our minds precisely what the order should be.

Mrs. Knight: Is not the hon. Gentleman making the same point that I made, that if this clause came later down the road that the traveller is taking, it could make him come all the way back to the beginning, whether or not it were passed, because it is basic to the structure of the measure?

Mr. Ross: I agree with the hon. Lady. I was struck by her remarks on that point. However, I always believe that if a sermon is good it is worth repeating a second, third or fourth time. I do not see any good reason why we should not follow the good advice which was given to me by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) who is no longer with us.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I am here.

The Chairman: Order. If any hon. Member wishes to make any comments he must be in the Chamber, not outside it.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: On a point of order, Mr. Weatherill. If an hon. Member is not present in the Chamber, is it possible for the Chair to see and address him?

The Chairman: It is not at all possible, but it is possible for the Chair to hear certain comments and I was merely reflecting upon that.

Mr. Ross: Thank you, Mr. Weatherill, for your guidance. If I were outside the Chamber myself, I should certainly not wish to transgress, because, as I pointed out in my opening remarks, we accept the latest word of the Chair, as is our bounden duty. I shall move on, as the debate has been short and several right hon. and hon. Members wish to speak.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could help the Committee by telling us which new clause he would like to deal with first. Does he want to dispose of the horrible new clause 4 and get it out of the way? Will he tell us what his order would be? That is the subject under debate. We are discussing the procedural motion and the order of selection. What is the hon. Gentleman's view?

Mr. Ross: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his help. Indeed, he has always been helpful to us. I agree that new clause 4 would be an excellent measure to discuss first. However, there are other provisions that are almost equally important and that should be debated fairly early on. The House has accurately identified new clause 4 as being at the crux of the matter. It has recognised that it should be disposed of as soon as possible to allieviate the fears and concerns of the people in Northern Ireland. They will be very annoyed when they realise its contents.
However, I am trying to deal with new clause 2. Whenever we traced back the provisions, we could not find anything comparable to new clause 2 in the Bill. Therefore, we decided that we should table the new clause so that people would know where we stand. We were concerned that the constitutional position that had been clearly outlined in other legislation—which is important and which requires early examination—was being left out. We wondered whether our constitutional position was being undermined in some insidious fashion. Therefore, we thought it wise to discuss the matter to set the people's minds at rest, to alleviate their anxiety and to show them that we are committed to Northern Ireland's constitutional position and that we want to maintain it.

Mr. Farr: I might be able to put the hon. Gentleman's mind—and that of the Committee—at rest about the wretched new clause 4. Its architect is sitting on the Opposition Front Bench. A comparison can be drawn between the Bill's long title and new clause 4. We could tentatively conclude that the new clause could not possibly fall within the ambit and purview of the long title. Perhaps you could reassure us, Mr. Weatherill, or give us some guidance. To give you a chance to examine it, the long title states:
To make new provision for the resumption of legislative and executive functions by the Northern Ireland Assembly
and so on. However, there is no reference in the long title to relations with the Republic of Ireland. Given the stringent selection of amendments, I should have thought that you could tell us that the new clause was not likely to be selected.

The Chairman(Mr. Bernard Weatherill): The hon. Gentleman is anticipating my selection. I repeat that we are not discussing new clause 4. I made that point on numerous occasions. We are discussing the order in which the clauses and new clauses and schedules will be taken. We are not specifically discussing new clause 4.

9 pm

Mr. Farr: On a point of order, Mr. Weatherill. We have spent considerable time on this and the Committee is anxious to move on. It has been made clear by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee that we are all concerned about the implications on new clause 4. If you were to give us your expert and candid opinion, Mr. Weatherill, possibly after a whispered consultation to which the Committee will turn a blind eye, as to whether you think there is any likelihood of new clause 4 being selected, and if you thought it was unlikely in view of the long title of the Bill, we could probably proceed apace.

The Chairman: I have no intention of being tempted to give any candid opinions on whether I shall select new clause 4 or any other amendment. What the Committee is anxious to do is to hear the Secretary of State. The whole matter may then be cleared up. Perhaps we could get to that.

Mr. Gorst: On a further point of order, W. Weatherill. Surely the easy answer is that since the preamble refers to "connected purposes", some connection with Southern Ireland would be a connected purpose. We could surely dispose of that quickly.

The Chairman: I am most grateful for the hon. Gentleman's helpful suggestion, but I am not proposing to deal with that now.

Mr. Ross: By now the Secretary of State, having listened to the debate, must be well seized of the fact that new clause 4 is disturbing and that the Committee feels that it should be brought forward for early discussion. I trust he is also aware that many hon. Members think that other new clauses should be discussed at an early stage

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I am anxious that my hon. Friend should not be too beguiled by what has been said to him by the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Butler) and by others in interventions in his speech. If he will read section 12 of the 1973 Act, in conjunction with clause 1(3), he will find that there is every reason to suppose that new clause 4 might be brought very easily within the ambit and scope of the. I hope he will not be too easily reassured.

Mr. Ross: I assure my right hon. Friend that I am not easily reassured by comments. That is why we must consider again the batting order of all the new clauses and of the amendments so that we understand clearly what is being attempted and try, in so far as in us it lies, to improve the Bill. Section 12 of the 1973 Act to which my right hon. Friend has referred says:
A Northern Ireland executive authority may—
(a) consult on any matter with any authority of the Republic of Ireland;
(b) enter into agreements or arrangements with any authority of the Republic of Ireland in respect of any transferred matter."
When one reads that, one's anxiety increases. I heard someone say earlier from a sedentary position that clause 1(3) would also give concern, never mind new clause 4. You will appreciate, Mr. Weatherill, that there is deep concern in the House about all these matters and about the constitutional position of the Province which might be undermined in a variety of ways. There may be nc reference in the legislation to this Parliament being at the end of the day the sovereign body, or a body might be set up which could rapidly turn into an all-Ireland council which could undermine and destroy our position.
We must consider carefully the order in which the clauses and amendments are taken. An excellent case has been made to bring forward the important matters that have been raised in this all too short debate.

Mr. George Gardiner: In my view, at least, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been right to reserve his remarks until the conclusion of the debate, and not to adopt the course suggested by some hon. Members to offer an explanation at the beginning about the proposed order in which we should discuss the clauses and schedules. After all, we gather that there has been some restriction, limitation or curtailment of the discussion that he has had through the usual channels at least with the minority parties in the House on the order that we should adopt for these proceedings. We know for certain that there has been no consultation through what have been called the unofficial channels.
The only way in which the Secretary of State could have been aware of the very real fears that are entertained by hon. Members was to listen to them being voiced today. Had he begun the discussion by pinning his colours to a mast, it would have been very difficult for him to move subsequently to meet the fears that had been expressed by hon. Members as we hope and trust he will do shortly when he comes to reply to the debate.
I join my hon. Friends in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) on concentrating our attention on new clause 4 and upon all the implications of delaying our consideration of it until very late in the consideration of the Bill as a whole. I began by wondering why my hon. Friend had pulled out new clause 4 for this proposed excessively favourable treatment. I knew that the Irish dimension, or the Southern Irish dimension, of this argument was a matter of great sensitivity—as it has been, I suppose, ever since the days of Sunningdale and perhaps earlier. We know the destructive force that this proposition and this idea have exerted upon the internal politics of Northern Ireland ever since. I began by appreciating that point. But equally, as hon. Members have pointed out, there are other different reasons why some of us are critical of, or even opposed to, the Bill.
There is the whole question of devolution and the form of devolution that the Bill proposes. As our discussions and debates unfold, we shall be making clear our objections to this proposed rolling, drunken devolution in the same way as we expressed our opposition to a different pattern of devolution during the consideration of different legislation in the last Parliament. Bearing that in mind, I wondered why new clauses 1 and 2 in the name of the official Unionists could not be singled out for equally favourable treatment. If we could resolve very early in our consideration of these matters the primacy of this House over the activities of the proposed Assembly in the way that new clauses 1 and 2 would enable us to do, then the opposition that many of us feel for this measure might be diminished.
I reflected also on why new clauses 11 and 12 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Sir. P. Goodhart) concerning a possible referendum should not equally be singled out for this priority treatment. I recall that in our deliberations on the Scotland and Wales Bill, the Government of the day, once the Bill had begun its

course through the House, recanted and agreed that the concept of a referendum should be embraced in that legislation.
The Government then proposed that the order of discussion of the clauses should be changed, so that the referendum could be discussed at an early stage and the remainder of that ill-fated Bill could proceed. Having listened to the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South-West and the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux), I agree that discussions on the new clause 4 should be given priority.
What can the Secretary of State do to meet our fears and objections? I do not doubt that he will tell us with complete honesty that he has had no secret negotiations or contracted any backstairs deals with the Opposition Front Bench. It would not be surprising for any Secretary of State to have regular contact with his Opposition equivalents and to give cursory consideration to such matters, but I am sure that my right hon. Friend will assure us that no deal of the type that has been suggested has been struck.
That does not remove the real fear that the Opposition will proceed with the deliberations on clauses and amendments on the basis of what they have read in the press—and that the Secretary of State will give favourable consideration to new clause 4. They may accept that it is a matter that is negotiable and accordingly behave one way during the proceedings. It is possible that other hon. Members will proceed on the assumption that it is not a clause that the Government could accept in a month of Sundays.
If there is to be any movement or negotiation on the point, it would be far better to have it concluded at an early stage so that we know where we stand. I ask the Secretary of State to give generous consideration to the points and anxieties that have been expressed. The only way for him to do that is to agree not to press his motion but to take it away and bring it back with new clause 4 written into it in the place that hon. Members clearly desire it to be. I hope that in the interests of progress and amity he will do that.

Mr. Gorst: My hon. Friend is making suggestions to our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about how we might strike a deal. Will he include in his suggestions the need for an assurance from our right hon. Friend that either new clause 11 or new clause 12, which provide for a referendum, would be acceptable to the Government? That would reinforce the feelings of many of us that a satisfactory conclusion would ultimately be reached.

Mr. Gardiner: I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's intervention, which will have been heard by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. It was not a point that I had intended to make.
It has been clear from the debate that the new clauses that have been tabled and those that will be tabled as a result of our deliberations are regarded as matters of crucial importance and the fact that new clauses will arise from our discussions leads me to oppose the idea that all the new clauses should be taken at the start of our proceedings.
There has been some discussion about when new clauses are best taken, and several of my hon. Friends have mentioned their experience on Committees handling other


legislation, although those proceedings were conducted upstairs and this Committee is being taken on the Floor of the House.
I should like to add a relevant consideration arising from my experience on the Employment Bill Committee. The timetable motion on that Bill prevented any new clauses from being discussed, either in Committee or on Report.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Cranborne) was taken to task for mentioning the dreaded word "guillotine", but I make no apology for stressing that if the important new clauses to this Bill are to be taken in the order suggested by the Secretary of State it is crucial for us to know that the legislation will not be made subject to a timetable motion.
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be able to give us an assurance that on this piece of constitutional legislation, which is of such critical importance to the Province and the whole United Kingdom, he has no intention of seeing it through on a timetable motion.

Mr. Michael Brown: I came into this debate only three-quarters of an hour ago. I did not realise until today the significance of such a motion. I have taken part in Committee proceedings only in Standing Committees. Usually they deal with Bills of less importance than this. I listened with care to my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner) and to the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross). It is clear from what they said and from the implications in the new clauses that there is need to resolve the order in which we discuss the new clauses.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) and others have drawn attention to the importance of new clause 4. It would not be sensible to pick out the new clauses which I believe to be of most importance, but my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate was right to say that for those of us who are anxious about devolution and the supremacy of the Westminster Parliament they are most important. Debating new clauses 1 and 2 at the beginning of our consideration will affect the Bill's colour.
There is a way of resolving the matter amicably. The Secretary of State is a patient man. He has seen controversial Bills through Committee. He exercised great skill in dealing with the Employment Bill in the first Session of this Parliament. His skill in steering that Bill through Parliament shows that he recognises that it is possible to proceed by agreement.
It should be possible to withdraw the motion and during the recess, or in the week that we return, for the Secretary of State to consult the minority parties and the official Opposition so that he can explain the Government's likely attitude to the new clauses. I cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend's attitude.

Mr. Body: Will my hon. Friend seek to persuade the Secretary of State that he should consult not only the official parties but some of his right hon. and hon. Friends? A growing number of them are anxious about the measure. Some hon. Members who have floated in and out of the Chamber were sympathetic to the Bill, but now have second thoughts.

Mr. Brown: I take my hon. Friend's point. When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State replies he could

resolve the problem easily by explaining the Government's likely attitude to the new clauses. With respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate, whose arguments I followed closely and with which I agreed in substance, it is not likely that my right hon. Friend will preclude debate by introducing a timetable motion. It is absolutely essential, and I am certain that my right hon. Friend would want to ensure that new clauses 1, 2 and 4——

Mr. John Spence: Should my right hon. Friend not go just a little further? New clause 4 goes to the very root of the Bill, and it is absolutely vital that we have a ruling from the Secretary of State, not just an indication.

Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Spence), and I support what he says. Enough debate has taken place on the relative merits of the new clauses, and if my right hon. Friend can give us some indication about his likely attitude to the various new clauses, we shall be reassured to some extent. If he cannot do that, the most satisfactory way to proceed would be to withdraw the motion for the time being and talk privately with the individual parties NA ho have tabled amendments. The right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) has tabled a major new clause. I am certain that my right hon. Friend will want to tell the Committee the Government's attitude to that new clause, because of the bipartisan approach that there has been to Northern Ireland politics between the two major parties over the past 10 years. So when the official Opposition table a new clause it is essential that they and the Committee should be given an early indication of the Government's attitude.
Other new clauses relating to the role and supremacy of the Westminster Parliament have been tabled by the Official Unionist Party. The representatives of that party, too, should be consulted. Naturally, one does not like secret debates taking place, and if my right hon. Friend can give the Committee a clear idea of his attitude to all the new clauses, that will avoid the business of private consultation, which is necessary but slightly messy and undesirable. Some of us do not represent Ulster constituencies and are not members of the official Opposition, but we represent Government supporters.
I have the good fortune to be the secretary of the Conservative Party, Northern Ireland Committee. The Secretary of State constantly makes himself available to my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison), myself and other members of the Committee, and we have taken every opportunity to pass on the various views that exist within the parliamentary governing party. However, at the end of the day it is not committees or ambassadors that will decide the view of the House and the Committee on the Bill, but individual Back Benchers on both sides of the House.
The most satisfactory way to proceed is to have a clear statement tonight before we have to commit ourselves to a particular order of consideration. We want a clear assurance from my right hon. Friend that the new clauses which immediate stand out as being important and go to the heart of the Bill will be debated.

Mr. Body: My hon. Friend is being persuasive. Could he employ his skills of persuasion on the Opposition Benches and try to succeed, where the rest of us have failed, in drawing out the right hon. Member for Mansfield


(Mr. Concannon) about whether he has had any discussions with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about new clause 4? We have been trying hard to find out whether there has been discussion or negotiation between the two Front Benches. Some of us become a little suspicious when Front Benches gang up together. It would be good if my hon. Friend could use his arts of persuasion to try to draw out the right hon. Gentleman before it is too late.

The Chairman: I must repeat to the hon. Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Brown) what I have said on numerous occasions. He must confine himself to the motion and not speculate on what the Opposition's views may be.

Mr. Brown: I have been led astray by interruptions. I note what you have said, Mr. Weatherill.
With regard to the motion, it is fair to note that the names of the right hon. Member for Mansfield and his colleagues are attached to new clause 4. If I were the official Opposition spokesman and had tabled such a new clause, I would not merely have gone along to the Table Office and left it at that. I would have wanted to seek a private meeting with the Secretary of State so that I could obtain his opinion. I am in danger of getting out of order. It is not for me to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman how he conducts the business of the official Opposition. If I were in his position, before I tabled the new clause I would have sought an indication of the likely attitude of the Secretary of State.

Mr. Christopher Murphy: I shall draw my hon. Friend back to the subject of the new clause, which is of concern to all hon. Members. Am I right in thinking that he is saying that he is absolutely against any form of timetabling? There is an understanding that on a constitutional measure of this importance, no timetable should be allowed, so that there is full and fair discussion.

The Chairman: That is no part of the order of proceedings motion.

Mr. Brown: In the motion one item is "New Clauses". It is clear that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, in moving the motion, intends to ensure that at some stage the new clauses will be debated. The new clauses are a long way down in the order. The debate centres on whether new clauses should be at the beginning of proceedings rather than at the end. The "New Clauses" item is near the end of the list that my right hon. Friend has given in his motion. I do not think that there is any ill motive——

Mr. Farr: rose——

Mr. Brown: I should like to proceed as time is pressing and I do not want to detain the House unduly. I shall give way to my hon. Friend if I may pursue this point in answer to the intervention that was made. I hope that I am still in order.
The "New Clauses" item is low down the list. It is in the motion moved by my right hon. Friend. I do not believe that there is any evil motive in my right hon. Friend's motion. I cannot believe that I would be proved wrong, because this is a constitutional matter.

Constitutional matters are traditionally given a great deal of debating time in the Chamber. It is right that that should continue.

Mr. Brown: I cannot imagine that the Bill will be treated differently from other constitutional Bills. I am disturbed to hear the word "timetable" used in the debate. It is a word that cannot be relevant to the Bill. There is no need for us to talk about a timetable in this debate. This is a constitutional issue and there are conventions and traditions that guide our proceedings on constitutional matters. My right hon. Friend has a great sense of parliamentary tradition and I do not believe that he would ever dream of allowing the word "timetable" to enter his mouth.
New clauses are included in the motion and debating time will be given to them. The real argument——

Mr. Farr: My hon. Friend has moved on a considerable way since I first tried to intervene on new clause 4. I wish to ascertain the exact sequence in which the Committee will discuss the new clause. For example, will it be at the forefront of our proceedings or will it come later, the latter course being intended in my right hon. Friend's motion? Does my hon. Friend attach any significance to the fact that apart from the sponsorship of the right hon. Member for Mansfield the new clause is sponsored also by an official spokesman for the Opposition on Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs? I refer to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara). Does my hon. Friend attach any significance to that?

Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend will be aware that we have been warned on several occassions that we should not discuss the substance of the new clause. When I drew the Committee's attention to the names that appear immediately above the new clause I was concerned that I might not be in order. I hesitate before responding to my hon. Friend but there may be some significance in the fact to which he has drawn attention. It indicates that informal consultation could have taken place between the Government and the Opposition Front Bench. It is clear that we need to know the Government's attitude to new clause 4 before we can decide whether to approve the motion.
I apologise for detaining the Committee unduly but clearly the order of proceedings is vital. If my right hon. Friend explains the Government's view on the individual new clauses, that may enable us to decide whether we can approve the motion. Alternatively, my right hon. Friend should consider withdrawing the motion to enable further consultation to take place between the Government, the official Opposition, minority parties and Conservative Back Benchers. If further consultation takes place privately on the Government's likely attitude towards the new clauses, it might be possible for us to proceed in an orderly manner and as speedily as is consistent with the traditions of the House of Commons, one of which is that we give careful consideration to measures of this constitutional magnitude.

Mr. Prior: This has been a very long debate. I had better start by reading out what the procedural motion seeks to do, which is to take clauses 1 and 2 first, followed by schedule 1, clauses 3 to 6 followed by schedule 2, clause 7 and then the new clauses, the new schedules and schedule 3.
My hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body) said that he thought that it was very important that we should conduct our proceedings with decency and in good order. That is precisely why this motion was tabled. My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor) wondered why we must have a motion at all. As I have been listening to this debate I have wondered that myself and I have come to the conclusion that such a motion is highly necessary if we are to conduct our proceedings properly. I shall explain why the Government and I thought fit to put the proceedings down in the order that we have.
Let me say straight away that, as I understand it, these proceedings do not necessarily mean that no new clauses are taken until the end of the Bill or until we have reached the point where I have suggested that they are put in. That is entirely a matter for the Chairman, who decides what should be discussed. My hon. Friends have waxed passionately about the fact that no new clauses might be taken until the end. If they read the Order Paper and the list prepared by the Chairman of Ways and Means, they will see that new clauses 11 and 12 are taken with amendments to clause 2, well up in the course of the Bill.
It is for the Chairman of Ways and Means to decide the selection of amendments and the new clauses and how they are to be taken, not for myself or the Committee. This motion sets out to try to maintain decency and good order, in the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston, and at the same time to establish a clear method of voting on the amendments, clauses, schedules and new clauses as and when we reach them.
The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) made an extremely interesting point when he answered remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr). My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough wondered why we did not always take the new clauses before we began the Bill and why on Report we dealt with the new clauses first. For those right hon. and hon. Members who were not in the Committee when the right hon. Member for Down, South answered, it is, as was described to him by Walter Elliott many years ago, a process whereby when one goes into Committee one starts with a clean sheet and then adds, clause by clause, to the clean sheet until one has a Bill. It does not seem unreasonable, where it is possible, that the Government should start with a Bill and then the Committee should go through it clause by clause and build it up again. That would seem to me to be the logical way of proceeding. At the same time, as the Government Bill is being taken clause by clause, it is right for the Committee to take the amendments and the new clauses as directed by the Chairman of Ways and Means so that the amendments and new clauses are debated consistently with the operation of the Bill.
The purpose is that if there are new clauses that have no direct connection with the Bill as it is drafted and approved on Second Reading, it is not unreasonable to believe that they would be taken at the end of the Bill if they are selected by the Chairman of Ways and Means.

Mr. Gorst: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Prior: I wish to get on a little. I have listened to many speeches this evening, but I shall give way in a moment. That is the manner in which, during many years,

we have built up our Committee stage procedures. It goes some way to answering many of the points that have been raised.

Mr. Gorst: Surely, to be consistent with the argument that my right hon. Friend has just put forward, if a new clause does not add to the Bill but changes its complexion, it is logical to start with a blank piece of paper containing that element from the beginning.

Mr. Prior: Unless it is a Government clause, it would not be relevant, but if it were relevant to that extern it would be a matter for selection by the Chairman of Ways and Means. We must proceed——

Mr. Gorst: rose——

Mr. Prior: I shall not give way for the moment. It would be relevant to set out why I have put down i he motion in this order, because it makes good sense.
We have put down clauses 1 and 2 first and then schedule 2. Clauses 1 and 2 give detailed effect to the provisions about full and partial devolution. Immediately after that it seemed right that we should take schedule 2 because it contains important amendments to the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 and is clearly essential to the scheme of the Bill and our plans for devolution. It seemed right to take clauses 1 and 2, deal with the amendments and the new clauses that are relevant to clauses 1 and 2 and then move on to schedule 1.
Then we come to clauses 3 to 6 which deal with the amendments to the Northern Ireland Constitution Act. Schedule 2 follows because it contains amendments to that Act and is essential to the scheme of the Bill. That seems to make perfect sense. Then we take clause 7, which is the tidying-up clause. Then we take the new clauses, the new schedules and schedule 3, which states the amendments that are required to that Act.
I listened carefully to the right hon. Member for Down, South and I examined the amendments that he and his hon. Friends put down. It is better to take schedule 3 at the end, because if any further changes are made to the Northern Ireland Constitution Act they can be taken into account in schedule 3. That seemed to me to be the right way to proceed and that is why we have stuck to it.
When I am asked about my attitude to new clauses, I must be careful or I shall be ruled out of order by the Chairman of Ways and Means, because we are not discussing the merits of individual clauses. All that we are discussing is where they should be taken, if they are selected, in Committee.
New clause 4 seems to be causing the most concern. However I do not know whether the Chairman of Ways and Means will select new clause 4 for debate. [Interruption.] I genuinely do not know. What is more, it is clear from what my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough said that he thought that it was doubtful whether the new clause fell within the long title of the Bill. In any event, it is not for me to decide the selection of new clauses or amendments to be debated.
It would be entirely wrong for the Government to give more than an indication of their attitude to any new clause or amendment when we are discussing a procedural motion and before hearing the arguments adduced. I can imagine that if I gave an indication now on the Government's likely views on a new clause or an


Government's likely views on a new clause or an amendment hon. Gentlemen would be hopping up and down saying that it was a gross discourtesy because I was prejudging the issue before I had heard the arguments. Therefore, I cannot be drawn into discussing the merits of amendments when debating a procedural motion.
I said on Second Reading that relations with the Republic was not a matter on which further legislation is required. Although I shall listen carefully to the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon), I see no reason to change my view on that now. On Second Reading I said:
There is already statutory provision in the 1973 Act enabling a Northern Ireland Administration to reach bilateral agreements with the Government of the Republic on transferred functions if they so wish. Hon Members interested in the proposed interparliamentary body will appreciate that an elected Northern Ireland Assembly would provide an opportunity for a valuable Northern Ireland input to any such body on which this House and the Dail may agree."—[Official Report, 10 May 1982;Vol. 23, c. 473.]
In that respect the proposals are complimentary, and not alternative, to the Government's policy of maintaining sensible and close arrangements for co-operation with the Republic. It would be inappropriate if I went further than that tonight.

Mr. Michael Brown: I acknowledge my right hon. Friend's persuasive arguments on rejecting or accepting new clauses. I accept his argument if he says that there are some new clauses that he cannot accept. To do otherwise may well cause confusion and consternation. However, perhaps my right hon. Friend will say what clauses he would be prepared to accept.

Mr. Prior: I do not believe that is the way to proceed. It is not a sensible way of conducting our affairs. The Government believe that the Bill, as it is laid down and as it has received a Second Reading, contains the main points and principles on which we rest our case. We are not looking for major amendments or new clauses, although we are, of course, listening to the views of the Committee and are prepared to make changes as the Bill goes through. There is in no sense any collusion, consultation, or anything of that nature as between one side of the Committee and any other parts of the Committee on these matters.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that the burden of our argument is not that he should say "Yes" or "No" but rather that we should have a debate on this matter so that, once having heard the Committee, he should make his decision? We want an immediate debate on new clause 4. We do not want the right hon. Gentleman to wipe it out. We seek a debate, following which we can listen to his reply.

Mr. Prior: Provided the new clauses are selected and moved, presumably by the right hon. Member for Mansfield, there will be a debate. But that is not likely to happen today—at least, I doubt it. We should all recognise that this is an important matter that will need debate, but the purpose of the procedural motion is not to decide what shall or shall not be debated. I have tried to set out a reasonable order in which matters can be debated and voted upon.
I apologise to the Committee, but earlier I made a mistake. I said that schedule 2 comes after clauses 1 and 2. I should have said schedule 1.
We have had an exceptionally long debate on a matter that is generally accepted to be a procedural question on which it should not be difficult to reach agreement. I have followed the usually accepted process on these matters. I have tried to deal with all the points that have been raised. I think that the time has come when we can agree that this is a perfectly reasonable arrangement. The selection of amendments and new clauses and when they should be considered is a matter for the Chair. On that basis I rest my case and hope that we can now proceed.

Mr. Gorst: I do not want to delay the Committee. Indeed, I had no intention of speaking when I began listening to these long hours of discussion. However, the overwhelming, if not unanimous, view is that new clause 4 should be brought forward for discussion at an earlier stage, assuming, Mr. Weatherill, that it is your decision to select it. It would be desirable to discuss the new clause at an early stage because it forms the very basis upon which we shall consider everything else that follows, assuming that it is acceptable.
I am not necessarily of a suspicious nature, but I have always understood that the job of an Opposition is to oppose. When Opposition spokesmen sit with a look of great satisfaction on their faces—I would not dream of suggesting that they have had either too much to eat or drink because they have not been away long enough for that to be possible—I can only assume that that satisfaction is with the motion. Unsuspicious as I am by nature, that makes me wonder what is in it for them.
My right hon. Friend has been scrupulous in his reply. He is right not to prejudge the issue, and it was the very openness of his mind on this subject, which was transparent in his remarks, that makes me feel that for the sake of our discussions it would be much safer if, Mr. Weatherill, in your wisdom you were to select the new clause and in your further wisdom you were to allow it to be discussed at a very early date.

Mr. Budgen: Perhaps I may briefly explain why I am so saddened by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's reply. I placed before him three serious reports that made considerable allegations against him. The first suggested that at some stage before the White Paper was approved by the Cabinet there was an element in it which proposed that there should be an Anglo-Irish Parliamentary Council. It is plain that that would be deeply disturbing to many of my right hon. and hon. Friends. My right hon. Friend had an opportunity to deny that, but he did not take it.
I read a second and a third report by reputable journalists which suggested that the proposals were still negotiable and that they probably still have the support of my right hon. Friend.

It being Ten o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put,

That, at this day's sitting, the Northern Ireland Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]

The House divided: Ayes 76, Noes 208.

Division No. 174]
[10 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
MacGregor, John


Arnold, Tom
Marlow, Antony


Atkins, Rt Hon H.(S'thorne)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Beith, A. J.
Mellor, David


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Moate, Roger


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
Needham, Richard


Bright, Graham
Newton, Tony


Bryan, Sir Paul
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Buchanan-Smith, Rt. Hon. A.
Patten, John (Oxford)


Butcher, John
Pollock, Alexander


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Chapman, Sydney
Prior, Rt Hon James


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Cope, John
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Costain, Sir Albert
Sandelson, Neville


Dorrell, Stephen
Scott, Nicholas


Dover, Denshore
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Dunn, James A.
Silvester, Fred


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Sims, Roger


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Speed, Keith


Goodlad, Alastair
Stainton, Keith


Gow, Ian
Stevens, Martin


Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Gummer, John Selwyn
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Hamilton, Hon A.
Thompson, Donald


Hawksley, Warren
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Henderson, Barry
Trippier, David


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Waddington, David


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Waller, Gary


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Warren, Kenneth


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Watson, John


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Wheeler, John


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Wickenden, Keith


Lang, Ian
Wolfson, Mark


Lester, Jim (Beeston)



Lyell, Nicholas
Tellers for the Ayes:


McCrindle, Robert
Mr. Robert Boscawen and


Macfarlane, Neil
Mr. Peter Brooke.




NOES


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Murphy, Christopher


Blackburn, John
Paisley, Rev Ian


Body, Richard
Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)


Brown, Michael(Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Budgen, Nick
Robinson, P. (Belfast E)


Farr, John
Skinner, Dennis


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Smyth, Rev. W. M. (Belfast S)


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Spence, John


Gorst, John
Stanbrook, Ivor


Knight, Mrs Jill
Winterton, Nicholas


Lawrence, Ivan



Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Tellers for the Noes:


McCusker, H.
Mr. William Ross and


Molyneaux, James
Mr. K. Harvey Proctor.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Royal Assent

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
1. Civil Aviation Act 1982
2. Harbours (Scotland) Act 1982
3. Industry Act 1982
4. East Lindsey District Council Act 1982
5. Hertsmere Borough Council (Rowley Lane) Act 1982
6. Port of London Act 1982
7. John Francis Dare and Gillian Loder Dare (Marriage Enabling) Act 1982
8. Hugh Small and Norma Small (Marriage Enabling) Act 1982

Northern Ireland Bill

Again considered in Committee.

Question again proposed,
That the order in which proceedings in Committee on the Northern Ireland Bill are to be taken shall be Clauses 1 and 2, Schedule 1, Clauses 3 to 6, Schedule 2, Clause 7, New Clauses, New Schedules and Schedule 3.

Mr. Budgen: Earlier, I explained how much I regretted the fact that I was unable to agree with the explanation given to the Committee by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I made several serious allegations that arose from three reports by reputable journalists that would—if raised at that stage—have given my right hon. Friend the opportunity to deny them completely. If he had done so, and said, for the sake of argument, that there was no proposal orginally in the White Paper for any Anglo-Irish Council and that there was no suggestion that he was prepared to negotiate with the Labour Party about some form of Anglo-Irish Council, he would have reassured, at an early stage, many of the Government's supporters.
The matter is serious, because many of those who take an active part in politics do not consider the detail of every piece of legislation. I make no complaint about that, but it was particularly noticeable, for example, during consideration of the two Bills on devolution for Scotland and Wales. Many saw the Bills with a fresh eye on seeing the problems that emerged in debate. I dare say that many Tory Members have not yet adequately considered the Bill. No doubt they have rightly said to themselves that the matter has been approved by the Cabinet, that they trust the Secretary of State and that they will agree, in very broad terms, to whatever he may propose. However, if the Secretary of State was in favour of paving the way to a united Ireland before the Bill came before the House, some of my hon. Friends might look very carefully at the proposals——

The Chairman (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are still discussing the order of consideration motion and not the merits of the Bill.

Mr. Budgen: Some of us want to discuss new clause 4 because we are concerned about the reports that have gone undenied. Because of our concern, we want to reach the crucial point immediately.
However, if all the reports are untrue and if an Anglo-Irish Council was never in my right hon. Friend's mind and the matter was not negotiable, we would trust the Secretary of State and say no more about it. However, he had the opportunity to tell us. In many important instances, the Tory Party exists not so much as a political but as a social organisation. We trust the chaps and we trust their broad approach. However, if the Secretary of

State was trying to pave the way to a united Ireland because he wanted the Labour Party's support, he should say so in a manly way or deny it. We should then all know where we are. We should then all fulfil our proper constitutional role and consider the Bill carefully.
I regret the Secretary of State's evasion. He had a wonderful opportunity to explain that he, with us and with my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Cranborne) was, in his roots, a Unionist and that in his very being he had no wish to dispose of Ulster. There was no necessity for him to do it by a long exposition. A sentence would have sufficed but he has denied the Committee that sentence and he must surely as a result place a real question mark in the minds of many of his right hon. and hon. Friends.

Mr. Body: I listened to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State with great care. I appreciate all that he did in trying to reassure us on some of the issues. I do not want to detract from what my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) has said. Of course new clause 4 is of enormous importance. It is significant that the author and architect of it has remained silent in these proceedings and on behalf of the official Opposition has not expressed any opinion about the procedural motion, let alone about the suspicions we have raised. I would have thought it was important for Northern Ireland, and for the Committee, that the anxieties should have been put right.
I raised earlier with my right hon. Friend a substantial matter and I am a little disappointed that he has not dealt with it. At some stage in our deliberations we must examine what has been called the West Lothian question. Any Bill dealing with devolution has to cover that. On Second Reading my right hon. Friend seemed to understate the difficulties that he may find himself in at some stage in these deliberations. My hon. Friends and I are trying to be helpful by making sure that we deal with this matter in a way which will make sense in the Bill.
The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) intervened on Second Reading and put to my right hon. Friend the West Lothian question, if I may call it that. My right hon. Friend replied that it would be resolved
In the same manner as happened in the 50 years of previously devolved Govemment."—[Official Report, 10 May 1982; Vol. 23, c. 477.]
He was speaking of the Government that existed at Stormont. Some of us would argue that the matters covered at Stormont were not of the same kind that we may be dealing with as a result of this Bill because all of us now think that the Bill is being put on the statute book with the object of getting the Irish dimension certified. I am disappointed that my right hon. Friend has not dealt with the matter. I express my disappointment.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: I want to say just a brief word in support of what the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) said. I agree that in the ordinary way this would be the proper order of having these matters set out, but two major constitutional issues arise. It is rightly said that those ought to be considered first. One of them is new clause 4 which deals with the possibility of setting up an Anglo-Irish Council which cuts across the whole purpose of the Bill. The other is the question of a referendum. Referendums are appropriate only to purely constitutional matters. This is a constitutional matter. For that reason, those matters ought to be disposed of first. I therefore support what my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) has said and also the general excellent approach which the hon. Member for Antrim, South made to the matter.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I listened carefully to the right hon. Gentleman. He admitted that this matter was of great importance to the people of Northern Ireland. He is well aware—I do not need to remind him—that there are things in this Bill that are totally repugnant to the Unionist people of Northern Ireland. Already they have been slapped in the face and told that, unless there is a 70 per cent. majority, they cannot have any form of devolved government. They are also told that if they are prepared to agree with republicans, they can have devolved government. I remind the right hon. Gentleman of the previous experience of this House and the disaster that occurred over the old Act that we are trying now to change. The disaster came when the very quick of the Unionist people was touched. They were told that they would have to start along the road of a united Ireland. That is what brought down the Executive very quickly.
If the right hon. Gentleman is not able to say tonight that it is his desire to have this most important matter debated first so that hon. Members know where the Government stand on the issue, he is courting disaster and will raise unlimited opposition against himself from the total Unionist population. It is not for me to say that no hon. Member should move the new clause. Let the clause be moved. Let us hear the arguments for and against it. Let the Minister give his opinion. Let this House make its decision. I am not asking that it should be wiped out and not called. In fact, I would greatly regret it if it was not called. I believe that the people of Northern Ireland should know where the Labour Party stands on this issue. When the matter is discussed, we can also hear where the Government stand. After that, the House can come to a decision. I am not arguing that we should forget about it. I am arguing that it should come first. If it comes first, we shall be able to make our decisions about other parts of the Bill.

Mr. Prior: I wish to intervene only briefly to say that I think it would be wrong if we took this new clause on its own first. It would be much better to allow it to come at the right stage of the Bill if it is selected. I can only say to the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) that I am as aware as he is of the need to try to deal sensibly with a number of problems of Northern Ireland that are extremely sensitive issues. I am aware, too, of what my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen has said. I urge and beg my hon. Friend not

to try to put words into my mouth that I have never uttered. I have been involved in no collusion or consultation with the Opposition on this clause.
The only thing put into the draft of the White Paper was an account of the document that was issued at the end of the talks between my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and Dr. FitzGerald. I can assure my hon. Friend that he has no right or cause for concern about my position as he sought to make out. I hope the House will realise, as the hon. Member for Antrim, North says, that what we say here is reported in Northern Ireland. It is very important that we do not raise fears or suspicions here that are totally unjustified. That is why it would be right in many ways to continue with this procedural motion, to get it out of the way and so enable us to get on with the Bill and to deal with it in a sensible way.
Time and again, new clauses and amendments are put down, not necessarily to permit a decision to be reached upon them but to enable hon. Members to have a purposeful debate. I believe that many of the new clauses put down are for that purpose. I should be prepared to give a full answer at the right time. I believe that that is the way that we should proceed and I urge my hon. Friends to adopt it.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 72, Noes 22.

Division No. 175]
[10.30 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Mills, Iain(Meriden)


Arnold, Tom
Moate, Roger


Atkins, Rt Hon H.(S'thorne)
Needham, Richard


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Newton, Tony


Berry, Hon Anthony
Onslow, Cranley


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
Patten, John (Oxford)


Bright, Graham
Pollock, Alexander


Brotherton, Michael
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Buchanan-Smith, Rt. Hon. A.
Prior, Rt Hon James


Butcher, John
RhysWilliams, Sir Brandon


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Chapman, Sydney
Sandelson, Neville


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Scott, Nicholas


Cope, John
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Dorrell, Stephen
Silvester, Fred


Dover, Denshore
Sims, Roger


Dunn, Robert(Dartford)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Speed, Keith


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Stainton, Keith


Goodlad, Alastair
Steen, Anthony


Gow, Ian
Stevens, Martin


Griffiths, Peter Portsm'thN)
StradlingThomas, J.


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Taylor, Teddy (S'endE)


Gummer, JohnSelwyn
Thompson, Donald


Hamilton, Hon A.
Thorne, Neil (IlfordSouth)


Hawksley, Warren
Trippier, David


Henderson, Barry
Waddington, David


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Waller, Gary


Hunt, John(Ravensbourne)
Warren, Kenneth


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Watson, John


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Wheeler, John


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Wickenden, Keith


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Wolfson, Mark


Lyell, Nicholas



Macfarlane, Neil
Tellers for the Ayes:


MacGregor, John
Mr. Peter Brooke and 


Marlow, Antony
Mr. Ian Lang 




NOES


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Budgen, Nick


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Farr, John


Blackburn, John
Gardiner, George(Reigate)


Body, Richard
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Brown, Michael(Brigg&amp;Sc'n)
Gorst, John






Lawrence, Ivan
Robinson, P. (Belfast E)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Smyth, Rev. W. M. (Belfast S)


McCusker, H.
Stanbrook, Ivor


Molyneaux, James
Winterton, Nicholas


Murphy, Christopher



Paisley, Rev Ian
Tellers for the Noes:


Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (SDown)
Mr. William Ross and 


Rees-Davies, W. R.
 Mr. K. Harvey Proctor.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Ordered,
That the order in which proceedings in Committee on the Northern Ireland Bill are to be taken shall be Clauses 1 and 2, Schedule 1, Clauses 3 to 6, Schedule 2, Clause 7, New Clauses, New Schedules and Schedule 3.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: On a point of order, Mr. Weatherill. It would be normal at this stage in proceedings on any ordinary occasion when the official Opposition is functioning as an Opposition for the right hon. Gentleman leading for the Opposition to put the time honoured question—especially since we have the presence of the Patronage Secretary and the Leader of the House—and inquire about the Government's intentions.—[HON. MEMBERS: "We are making progress."] We have not made progress in the technical sense of that term.
Care must be taken in finding the motion appropriate to achieve the desires of the Government or the House. Nevertheless, it would be convenient to the House generally, as well as of help to the conduct of business, to know the Government's intentions before we engage on the amendments.

Mr. Prior: I should like to answer briefly that point of order. As the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said, technically we may not have made progress, and therefore we must be careful. In my view, it would be right to try to make some progress. I am sure that it would not be the desire. of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and myself to go on for too long, but we should seek to make some progress and perhaps after a reasonable time it would be right to seek to report progress.

Mr. Amery: Further to that point of order, Mr. Weatherill. I sympathise with the Secretary of State's view, but, as the Government cannot muster enough votes, even for a closure, would the Secretary of State seriously consider postponing the debate until after the recess?

Sir John Biggs-Davison: Further to that point of order, Mr. Weatherill. I slightly disagree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery). We do not want to talk in terms of closures in matters like this, not only because we are debating a constitutional measure of high importance but because there has been no undue protection of proceedings. There has been a reasonably full debate on the procedural question. That has been brought to a conclusion. Now we are ready to make progress for the first time. Progress has not yet been made. So we should not talk in terms of closures. We want to talk about the full and proper debating of this constitutional Bill.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Weatherill. I thank the Secretary of State for the indication that he gave the House, which I think was most helpful, and, if I may say so, reasonable. As the first group of amendments that have been selected raises major matters which go to the root of the Bill, it may be

convenient for the Committee to address itself to them, before progress is reported and before coming to a conclusion on them. If that is what was in the right hon. Gentleman's mind and would be consistent with it, I personally think that it would help progress.

Mr. Prior: No, that was not what was in my mind. These two amendments do not raise fundamental issues. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] We should discuss the amendments and perhaps reach a conclusion on them.

The Chairman: The first group of amendments falling for discussion——

Mr. Budgen: On a point of order, Mr. Weatherill.

The Chairman: I do not think that a point of order arises.

Mr. Budgen: Perhaps we could have a short debate on a point of order. One of my right hon. Friends raised the matter of the closure.

The Chairman: Order. There is no debate on a point of order.

Mr. Budgen: I am sorry that I put it inelegantly, Mr. Weatherill. I hoped that I might be allowed to make an observation—a different way of looking at the same point of order. Perhaps I might make a couple of observations. It seemed to me most regrettable that my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) referred to the matter of the closure. One of the advantages of the closure procedure is that it forces the Government of the day to have about 100 hon. Members in the House, and we want 100 hon. Members in the Committee because we believe that many hon. Members have not considered this Bill adequately or——

The Chairman: Order. Whether there are 100 hon. Members in the Committee is not a matter for the Chair.
The first group of amendments falling for discussion——

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: On a point of order, Mr. Weatherill. This is an entirely different point of order. I wish to submit it to you, without any question of querying in any way or challenging the selection of amendments of which you have been good enough to notify the Committee. Nevertheless, there is the point that I believe that you or a predecessor of yours has been willing to take into account and answer on previous occasions.
Unless you decide otherwise, Mr. Weatherill, there will eventually be a debate upon the question that clause 1 stand part of the Bill. It is within your discretion to decide that the matters covered by the clause have been sufficiently debated, if in your view they have, in the debates on amendments that have taken place.
The point that I wish to submit to you is that a number of the amendments which, entirely within your discretion, you have decided not to select raise matters of interpretation. I will not say that they are drafting amendments, but they are amendments designed to elucidate and to elicit explanation. I hope that at the appropriate time you will permit that to be taken into account before you come to your decision as to the question whether clause 1 should stand part without further debate. I believe that there is precedent, if you are willing to do so, for your giving such an indication.

The Chairman: It is a little early to say that at the moment. At the appropriate moment I shall certainly take that into consideration.

Mr. Proctor: On an entirely different point of order, Mr. Weatherill. It concerns the progress that the Committee might make. I made a helpful suggestion earlier this evening, that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State should make available to members of the Committee the briefing notes provided by civil servants for Ministers. On other Bills in other Committees, that helps progress. I specified the example of the Mental Health (Amendment) Bill Committee, which is making excellent progress, helped by the decision of the Ministers to release the briefing notes. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State——

The Chairman: Order. That is a matter for the Secretary of State, not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Proctor: rose——

The Chairman: Order. That is a matter for the Secretary of State. The hon. Gentleman has made his point.

Mr. Prior: Further to that point of order, if it was one, Mr. Weatherill. In the interests of progress and because I should like the Committee to be as well informed as possible, if hon. Members request that the notes be made available to them, I am prepared, on application, to see that they are made available.

Mr. Proctor: Further to that point of order, Mr. Weatherill. I thank my right hon. Friend very much. That will be a most helpful gesture.

Mr. Gorst: rose——

Mr. Budgen: Further to that point of order, Mr. Weatherill.

The Chairman: Order. That point of order has already been dealt with. Hon. Members have heard what the Secretary of State had to say.

Mr. Budgen: I should like to raise a detail that I believe my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would like to hear. May I suggest through you, Mr. Weatherill, that the notes be deposited in the Vote Office and that each hon. Member who collects them signs for them? We should then know how many hon. Members are taking an interest in the Bill.

The Chairman: That is a spurious point of order.

Mr. Gorst: Further to that point of order, Mr. Weatherill.

The Chairman: Is this a genuine point of order?

Mr. Gorst: In response to what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, in view of the fact that he will make available that material to us, would it not be more sensible if we awaited the arrival of the material and discontinued any further consideration until then?

The Chairman: That is not a matter for me.

Clause 1

PROPOSALS FOR GENERAL OR PARTIAL SUSPENSION OF DIRECT RULE

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in clause 1, page 1, line 9, leave out 'by the Assembly and'.

The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 3, in clause 1, page 1, line 10, leave out `it', and insert 'the Assembly'.

Mr. Powell: I thank you, Mr. Weatherill, for having reconsidered your original grouping and having detached from those two amendments amendment No. 13, which related to a substantially different point. With amendments Nos. 2 and 3 paragraph (a) will read:
proposals for the resumption by persons responsible to the Assembly of all the functions".
The words "as aforesaid" in line 13 will automatically reproduce the same effect in the interpretation of paragraph(b). So whether we are dealing with devolution or a resumption of the 1973 Act as a whole by one action, or whether we are dealing with rolling devolution, the same amendment would be made to the provisions, and instead of the resumption by the Assembly and by persons responsible to it of their functions under the 1973 Act, there would be
proposals for the resumption by persons responsible to the Assembly
of functions under the 1973 Act.
There are separate functions, as there are in the constitution of the United Kingdom, under the 1973 Act for the Assembly and for the Executive, or other persons responsible to it. Those functions are respectively legislative and executive, broadly speaking. The first issue that the two amendments raise is legislative as opposed to executive devolution. The second issue that is raised is the nature of the executive devolution. Under paragraph (a) that devolution has to cover the entire range involved in the 1973 Act. But under paragraph (b) the executive devolution can proceed by stages and may be a devolution not merely to the Executive but to persons responsible to the Assembly. The amendment would therefore open up the possibility that the Executive might, in effect, place itself in the position of functioning as a local authority through persons who would be responsible to it for the administration of certain functions that at the moment are administered by the boards or by local authorities.
These two amendments raise two of the most fundamental questions that it is possible to consider in the context of devolution. First, they raise the distinction between legislative and executive devolution and, secondly, they raise the distinction between devolution in the style of the 1973 Act, as originally conceived, and that form of executive devolution that is enjoyed in the rest of the United Kingdom and which we designate specifically by our limited use of the term "local government".
As this is the first substantive debate that we are to have upon the Bill, perhaps I might be permitted to remark—I am sure that I am not the only member of the Committee to be aware of it—on a certain weirdness and unreality of atmosphere in which the debate is taking place. It would be true to say of us all, including those who represent constituencies in Northern Ireland to which the Bill applies, that our thoughts predominantly are elsewhere. It


may be questioned whether the House of Commons is in the best position and in the best mood for taking the vital decisions that are implicit in the Bill in circumstances in which, unavoidably, our thoughts are elsewhere and on other topics. The House of Commons will not require me to specify the direction to which I am referring.
Particularly at this hour of night, and particularly after the hours, by no means wasted, which have been spent this afternoon, I have often found myself reflecting upon the almost grotesque contrast between the business that the Government have required us to transact in the Chamber and other matters for which, ultimately, those of us in this Chamber are responsible—responsible to our consciences and responsible to the public. Those reflections are greatly reinforced by the bearings of the Bill before us, to which it is not inappropriate to refer in moving the amendments because they go to the heart of devolution.
11 pm
However, we would be mistaken and the Committee would be deceiving itself if we supposed that when we debate the Bill we are debating, large though the subject is, devolution for Northern Ireland. Perhaps when Parliament debated the Government of Ireland Act 1920 for the better government of Ireland and perhaps when it debated the Irish Free State Constitution Act 1922 that performed the Solomon's judgment on one and another part of Ireland, it could have been claimed that it was in some sense debating devolution, but we know that that is not the object of this Bill or the object of those who have brought it to its present stage.
Reference was made at Question Time today—it seems a long time ago—to statements made by a Minister of State in the Northern Ireland Office, a noble Lord who sits in another place and who is a citizen of the Irish Republic. He has chosen to retain that citizenship. We understand also that it was by the special desire of the Secretary of State that the noble Lord transferred with him from his previous office to the office that he now occupies. I mention those personal details not in order to be personal but because they render significant what might otherwise be less significant in the utterances of a Minister in the Northern Ireland Office.
The noble Lord gave an interview on 13 January 1982 which was printed in the Belfast Telegraph. The words that I wish to quote are directly relevant to devolution, which is apparently the subject of the sentence, and are from the last paragraph of that interview:
Greater devolved government is not the solution. It is an essential contribution to a new set of attitudes. It is one part of the strategy—co-operation with the Irish Republic is another. Whatever the pressures on us to drop it we have set our faces against that—like flint.
So when, in debating this Bill, we discuss what on their face are measures of devolution and transfer under certain conditions of responsibility from this House and the Government as responsible to it to another Assembly and to those elected to that Assembly, we must never lose sight of the over-riding purpose that lies behind it. That purpose is connected not with the better government of Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom but with the creation of an entirely different relationship between Ulster and the rest of the United Kingdom on the one hand and, on the

other hand, that foreign country which, so far as I am aware at the moment, apart from Argentina is the only foreign Country that claims British territory.
Perhaps I might venture, and I shall venture no more, another quotation from the same source. The noble Lord said:
I suppose that if I had my way I would have dual citizenship.
Well, he has not.
Why not have people living in the North"—
that is, Northern Ireland—
who regard themselves as Irish, administered by Ireland and Britain?
Such is the thinking that lay behind the preparation of the legislation and which lay behind all the tortuous procedures that have led to the White Paper and now the Bill.
That adds a dimension to the weirdness of the fact that at this moment, when British territory is being regained at the risk of their lives by our fellow citizens, we should be debating legislation of which the true purpose is not devolution, but is the detachment in one way or another of a part of the United Kingdom from the United Kingdom to which it belongs. It is a strange event, a weird event and, arguably, a contradictory event to be taking place at 11 o'clock tonight. It is an event for which those of us who sit here are not responsible but for which, with all its contradictory and grotesque nature, the Government are responsible.
I return to the two major issues that are opened up by the amendment.

Mr. Nicholas Lyell: Is it so weird that we should be debating this Bill? Is it not part of our objective to restore to that distant place to which the right hon. Gentleman referred the process of democracy? Is not the object of the Bill, with whatever faults it may or may not have in the right hon. Gentleman's mind, to restore to the Province of which he is so distinguished a representative some wider processes of democracy?

Mr. Powell: What the processes should be to deserve that name within the United Kingdom is a matter that we can debate both on the amendment and on many of the other amendments that will no doubt be selected for debate.
I make only this point to the hon. and learned Gentleman. There is an important distinction between the inhabitants of the Falkland Islands and the inhabitants of Northern Ireland. The former are the inhabitants of a colony not represented in Parliament and not forming part of the United Kingdom. Their democracy, therefore, will be such democracy as is possible for a territory whose inhabitants, though British, are not represented in the House. At any rate, it is difficult to see how they can go beyond that except to the step of total self government—no doubt within the Commonwealth, but total self-government.
But the inhabitants of Northern Ireland are inhabitants, like those whom the rest of hon. Members here represent, of part of the United Kingdom. What is democracy in the rest of the United Kingdom is democracy in Northern Ireland. What is meant by the rights of people in Northern Ireland is what is meant by the rights of people—their political and other rights—in the rest of the United Kingdom. I am prepared to call the hon. and learned Gentleman in aid in support, in using the Bill or criticizing


the Bill, of that criterion. Those who inhabit any part of the United Kingdom are entitled to the same rights as those who occupy any other part of it. In the last resort they are part of the United Kingdom because they are represented in the House and it is the House that carries the ultimate responsibility for them, at any rate in every political respect.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: The right hon. Gentleman spoke earlier of the unreal atmosphere in the House when we are discussing this matter while our min 's are on other things. Has he considered how difficult it is for some of us, who very much resent the attitude that the Republic of Ireland is at present taking in the EEC towards this country——

The Second Deputy Chairman (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. I remind the Committee that we are discussing an amendment to leave out the words "by the Assembly and", so we ought to direct our attention to that.

Mr. Lawrence: I am directing my mind to that, Mr. Armstrong. What I am saying is specifically related to a point that the right hon. Gentleman raised at the beginning of his remarks. As there is at present an unreal atmosphere of anger and resentment, surely that is hardly the right atmosphere in which we should be considering a matter that may involve the coming together of this country and Southern Ireland in the context of the Bill. I find it difficult at present—such are my feelings of anger and irritation—to direct my mind to any closure or healing of the breach that there may be between Southern Ireland and Northern Ireland and Great Britain. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider that as another matter that affects our thinking?

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will confine himself to the amendment.

Mr. Powell: I certainly shall, Mr. Armstrong. It is in no way in contravention of your reminder to the Committee if I find myself in agreement with the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence). I am also unable to escape from the analogy between those two territories—in other words, that claim is laid to them by an external Power and that that claim is being pursued against them by force, based upon or exerted by that external Power. These thoughts are so strong in our minds that we would be insincere if we attempted to pretend them away.
At any rate, no blame attaches to what we are doing tonight or to that fact that we are doing it tonight under these disabilities. Certainly, no blame attaches to those who voted against Second Reading and wish that it were not a matter that we had to consider at all, at any rate in its present form. However, the Bill is before us, and it is necessary to understand the implications of what it contains. It is as a contribution to that that my hon. Friends and I have tabled the amendment.
I address myself to the first issue—that of legislative as opposed to administrative devolution. I preface my observations by pointing out that the whole structure and purport of the clause is permissive. The Secretary of State has claimed it as an advantage of this legislative approach that he leaves it open to the Assembly to make certain choices and that he takes no decisions himself.
I want to ensure that we understand the nature of some of those choices and that we do not foreclose choices that

such an Assembly might wisely or legitimately seek to make. One of the choices is between executive devolution and legislative devolution, and there is a very fundamental difference.
As has already been said, Session after Session in the last Parliament, the House debated proposals for legislative as well as executive devolution to Scotland. One of the results of that, which is indelibly impressed on the minds of hon. Members who took part in, or witnessed, those debates, was the incompatibility of legislative devolution with the unity of the United Kingdom.
It was originally a desire on my part to pay courteous tribute to the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). I think that it was I who first christened this question the West Lothian question. I have given the hon. Gentleman notice that the matter might be raised in the present context. He was most persistent in that repeated analysis which is one of the methods by which the House educates itself and, thereby, those out of doors.
11.15 pm
The proposition in application to Northern Ireland is much stronger now than it was when those debates took place three or four years ago. We did not like the curtain that the Secretary of State lifted for a moment over the future when he allowed himself to speculate that the parliamentary representation of the Province in tile House might, in due course, be reduced again as a consequence of what is proposed in the Bill. Whatever may be the future, the right hon. Gentleman, as I understood him—I am sorry that he is not present; I am sure that I am not misinterpreting him—indicated beyond a peradventure that he looked forward to the effective representation of Northern Ireland in the House being increased to 17 seats by legislative action to be taken in the next month or two. So near was the prospect that the Secretary of State admitted that it was worth consideration and that there was a possibility that the constituencies for the purposes of the Bill might be the 17 constituencies that were envisaged for the future parliamentary representation of Northern Ireland. We were grateful to him for the admission. We shall be able to explore the matter later in the proceedings.
The old escape route from the West Lothian dilemma, from the incompatibility of legislative devolution in a unitary State to only one part of that State, the old escape route from the dilemma of de minimis, which was the steadily used escape route during the 50 years of the 1920–22 Government of Ireland Act, is not seriously available when we look to the future.
It was just possible, though it was part of the corrupt and slothful bargain by which the House disinterested itself for 50 years in the affairs of Northern Ireland, that the fact that there would be 12 hon. Members here—yielding, perhaps, a majority for one side of six or seven—who were not on all fours or on the same footing but carrying the same responsibilities as all their fellow hon. Members, would be lived with. That was terminated when the 1972 and 1973 Acts abolished that constitution.
An anomaly can be lived with but not recreated. But that proposition does not need to be applied in the case that we are considering because we are now discussing a Northern Ireland which will be represented in the House by 17 seats. There is no answer, and there will shortly in practice be found to be no answer, to the question addressed to those 17 hon. Members: "How come you here to debate and to vote with us on a whole range of subjects


for which you are not responsible to your constituents as we are responsible to ours?" More than that, "How come you 17 Members, whatever may be the majority among you one way or the other, of one inclination or the other, to decide, perhaps on the Address in reply to a Queen's Speech, what form of government there shall be in the United Kingdom, when the subjects on which the election was conducted in Great Britain were very largely not the subjects on which the election was conducted in your own part of the United Kingdom?" That is the reason. It is the unanswerability which was teased out and proved time and again in the debates on the Scotland Bill that constitutes the ultimate incompatibility between legislative devolution and membership of a unitary parliamentary State such as the United Kingdom.
Putting it at its lowest, I do not believe that it is right for the House 'of Commons by this Bill to say to the Assembly "You cannot separate the two—you must take the one with the other or have neither". That is what clause 1(1)(a) says. It says that if there is to be devolution at all it must be legislative as well as executive devolution.
The foreseen and foreseeable consequence of that would be to create or to recreate a line of division between Ulster and the rest of the United Kingdom. It would be to reintroduce the representatives of Northern Ireland into this House as what they have not been these last 10 years—second-class citizens. It would also throw into relief the separation of that part, and only that part, of the United Kingdom in almost every legislative or political transaction, in almost every controversial transaction that took place in this House. Ever and again, the question would be raised—with what justification, on this subject or on that, do the representatives of Northern Ireland come here to vote with the rest of us when they or, rather, representatives of their electorate, have power to legislate separately for that Province on those subjects and to take those decisions separately for that Province?
Legislative devolution is thus the beginning of separation, and legislative devolution to a Province that is henceforward to be fully represented in the United Kingdom is the more clearly the beginning of separation. Indeed, the Secretary of State himself—as always, I am groping to pay him a compliment, and that was my only reason for interrupting him just now—was candid enough to say, in the debate on Second Reading, or it may have been in the debate on the White Paper, that if the result of the Bill was to be an approach to the content of clause 1(1)(a), it would bring into doubt the full representation of Northern Ireland in this House.
What is the meaning of belonging to the United Kingdom without full representation in this House? Is it really compatible with the United Kingdom? Is it compatible with the nature of this House that some parts of the Kingdom should be more or less represented in it than others? This is a House of equals, or it is nothing.
When the first separation that ever took place under the British Crown was debated in the House of Commons, although not actually in this place, in one of the most memorable debates ever held—the debate upon conciliation with America—Edumund Burke moved a motion which was the first of a series of propositions. The first proposition, and that on which his celebrated speech was delivered, was that the people of the colonies had not had the right to elect burgesses and knights to the House. He

drew attention to the impracticability of representation of the House as the essential criterion which enforced, and was bound to enforce, the legislative separation, and ultimately the separation, of the American colonies from the mother country.
When we talk about legislative devolution, let us understand, particularly in the light of the known and declared purposes of this legislation, that ultimately legislative devolution is incompatible with the Union. That perhaps would be a consideration that the House might less regard if there were a clamour and an agitation amongst the people of Northern Ireland to live under different laws from the rest of the United Kingdom.
If the people of Northern Ireland were to come to the House and say, through their representatives here or otherwise: "We do not like your laws. We want to make our own laws. We want different laws from yours", then, no doubt, the conclusion would have to be drawn—that if there is to be devolution it must be legislative devolution. However, the whole burden of the complaint, the whole burden of the demand so often expressed by the representatives of Northern Ireland in the House, is that the laws which apply to them should be the same as those which apply in the rest of the Kingdom.
During the period in which legislative devolution was in effect, from 1921 to 1972, there was an anxious care to keep as closely as possible in the legislation of a parliament of Northern Ireland, though often at an awkward interval of a year, or, in some cases, several years, to the legislation in this permanent House. The reason for that was that it was realised that legislative separation means political separation, means separation.

Mr. Gorst: May I reinforce the right hon. Gentleman's argument with an example from another part of the world. In the Caribbean, two French Islands, Martinique and Guadeloupe, have direct representation in the French assembly. As a consequence of that direct relationship there is a much closer relationship between France and those territories, despite the distance that is entailed. That reinforces what the right hon. Gentleman is saying.

Mr. Powell: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I believe that I am not mistaken in saying that those are parts of metropolitan France, which is as near as one can get to what we mean when we say "parts of the United Kingdom". It may be—I must not be tempted, Mr. Armstrong, to elude your ever-watchful Argus-like vigilance—by observing that one day we may once again have to consider, perhaps in relation to the Falkland Islands, to Gibraltar, or to other scattered territories, whether perhaps, though it has been outside the realm of our experience or contemplation hitherto, representation in the House, or in some way or another, and legislative union and real union, are not the future, the only future, which for them and for their inhabitants will be genuinely secure and genuinely British.
I have just made a general statement about the wishes and aspirations of the people of Northern Ireland. I said that they were far more interested in being assured of legislative uniformity with the rest of the United Kingdom than in the power of differentiation.

11 30 pm

Sir Philip Goodhart: rose——

Mr. Powell: I have just embarked upon a point, but I shall give way afterwards if the hon. Gentleman still


wishes to intervene. Of course, the House has legislated separately on certain topics for the different parts of the United Kingdom. The House gave a separate and good educational system to Wales in the nineteenth century. It has preserved certain rights to the people of Scotland that were given under the Treaty of Union. On certain matters in which the European Court of Human Rights has concerned itself of late, the House has, by common consent, legislated differently, or not at all, for different parts of the United Kingdom. Lest any hon. Member should think that that is a contradiction, I should make it clear that it is not. That is not an assertion that Wales should have legislated on Welsh education, Scotland on Scottish education, Scotland on Scottish morals, or Ulster on Ulster morals, but a statement that the House—to which we all belong—is capable, on the authority of all who belong to it, of legislating differently, if that is the local desire for different parts of the United Kingdom. Therefore, by legislative union, the United Kingdom has succeeded in nevertheless being able to provide for meeting—within a general uniformity of law, and a general equality of rights—differences of wish, nuance, habit and assumption between the parts that make up the United Kingdom. Of course, the people of Ulster resent—as those in the rest of the United Kingdom should resent—the impositon of the obligation by an external authority to have their law changed. However, I am not talking about that. That is just as much an outrage upon the House as it is an outrage upon a part of the United Kingdom if the Government find that they have to submit to it because of the treaty obligations into which they have entered.
That does not alter the fact that the right of the people of Ulster to run their own affairs—just as the people of the other parts of the United Kingdom run their affairs—is executive devolution and is not the right to distinguish themselves from the rest of the United Kingdom by creating a different corpus of law. Therefore, there is no demand in Northern Ireland—to which the House might feel required to respond—for legislative devolution. Once it is understood that devolution contains the kernel of separation from the United Kingdom, there will be a repudiation.
Ulster wants, and has a right to, executive devolution. It has a right to it, because that is what the rest of the United Kingdom enjoys. Therefore, the amendment makes a distinction. I am sure that the Secretary of State is serious in saying that the maximum range of options should be open to the Assembly that he hopes to create. In that case, let the options include the eligible and the ineligible option, and not the obligation that the eligible and the ineligible should be combined.
I come to the second major issue—indeed, I have already trenched upon it—which is raised by these amendments. I mentioned just now that there is a demand, and I do not see how it can be rationally refused by the Committee, that people living in Northern Ireland should have the same democratic control over their own local affairs and over the administration of the law in Northern Ireland as is possessed by their fellow citizens in all the rest of the United Kingdom. The manner in which that is exercised in the rest of the United Kingdom varies from part to part. There is a variegated system of local self-government from one end of Great Britain to the other.

There would be no inconsistency in there being a similar variegation in that pattern when it was extended, as it ought to be, to Northern Ireland.
I suppose it could be said, but only jocularly, that the pattern extends at the moment to Northern Ireland, but it extends only in the sense that there are elected bodies which discharge rather more than nugatory but relatively unimportant environmental functions and that all the other functions which in the rest of the United Kingdom are supervised and administered by elected bodies are supervised and administered in Northern Ireland by Ministers responsible to this Parliament. If there is a gap and an injustice, then that is the most manifest gap and the most manifest injustice. So it is natural that in considering this Bill we should say that we want any Assembly or any body which is thinking about the future administration and government of Northern Ireland to be able to think about that.
What are the subjects which the people of Northern Ireland are most anxious to control for themselves? What are the executive functions which they resent being administered by this Parliament, not because of the v ay in which the administration is carried out either by the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues or by those who went before, but because it is carried on in a manner which is not democratically controlled by themselves? What are the subjects to which that resentment most applies? I will tell the Committee—education, health, housing, planning, the environmental services, roads, water, sewerage. In short, they are most of the subjects which make up the intercourse, by speech or writing, between hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituents and their constituencies.
They are the things which touch people in their lives or in the lives of their families—their housing, their education, what they will be allowed to do with their houses, what they will be allowed to build and where, whether a supply of fresh water will be brought to them where they live and their means of communication with their neighbours. All these things are things which are the texture of daily life and which in the rest of the United Kingdom are administered under democratic local responsibility. It is that administration which the people of Northern Ireland most eagerly claim and which they can least easily be denied. If that is the kind of structure they want and the kind of rolling devolution that they want to roll, then let us enable them to roll it.
I invite the attention of the Committee to the way in which clause 1(1)(b) would read when these amendments are made:
proposals for the resumption by persons responsible to the Assembly of"—
now I have to insert——

Mr. Lawrence: Clause 1(1) (a).

Mr. Powell: No. I am reading clause 1(1)(b). I am obliged to the hon. and learned Member for Burton for his interruption because perhaps I was not being clear. The words "as aforesaid" in line 13 import what is already written in paragraph (a):
by persons responsible to it"—
the Assembly. We can write those words in substitution for the words "as aforesaid" in interpreting paragraph (b) following the amendment to which I hope the Committee will agree. It will then be:
proposals for the resumption by persons responsible to the Assembly


of some of the functions that were transferred functions under the 1972 regime. Those are functions which are at present administered by Northern Ireland Departments. Is there any reason why the Assembly should not administer those functions through the bodies which at present exercise them? Is there any reason why the elected Assembly for Northern Ireland should not exercise supervision and control over the administration of education by library and education boards, or over the administration of the health services by the health and social service boards, or the administration of housing by the Housing Executive?
Should it not be able to opt, if it wishes, to leave in the hands of the Executive those functions which in the rest of Great Britain are in the hands of Ministers, and to introduce democratic control into those subjects which are under democratic control in the rest of Great Britain? As for the environmental services, the Assembly might decide—certainly it should have the power to decide—to make a clean sweep to bring about genuine local government in the hands of either district councils as they exist or a system recognisably similar to district councils.
I am sorry that I have lost the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State again. I use such poor oratorical powers as I possess to rivet the Secretary of State to his seat on the Front Bench. Ever since the hon. Lady the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) referred to a bed of nails I have looked upon the right hon. Gentleman with eyes of more sympathy and compassion than those eyes ever exuded before. Perhaps it is because of the bed of nails that the right hon. Gentleman finds it ncessary so frequently to take a turn of refreshment from that seat in the House.
I cannot believe that the right hon. Gentleman wants to deny to his favoured new intended creature the right to do what one of his Ministers has been advocating. The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Mitchell), who is the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland with responsibility for the environment, has been talking about the subject in the past few weeks. He talked to the first conference of the Association of Local Authorities. Perhaps because he found himself in such congenial company he said what some of us have been saying for a long time and suspected were the thoughts of the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and those of his predecessor—that it was about time that there was some real local government in the discharge of environmental functions. He said:
A positive view needs to be taken and indeed following the election of an Assembly in the autumn a key question which will no doubt be considered is to what extent local politicians may wish to return power to district councils".
11.45 pm
We are used to receiving lectures whenever we have dared to say that. We have said it; indeed, we could not help saying it. The absurdity of those powers being withheld from representative bodies stares us in the face whenever we are in our constituencies. We have always been told by the Secretary of State or others, "But you can't do that. It is not possible, because they would all be quarrelling or discriminating." But it looks as though we were on the right lines after all, because the Under Secretary—the Secretary of State's right-hand man in environmental matters and his spokesman of local

government—speaking in beautiful Newcastle in my constituency, in the shadow of the Mourne mountains, told the conference of local authorities:
following the election of an Assembly in the Autumn"—
I am glad that the Secretary of State has returned to hear this; it is good stuff and I am sure that he authorised it—
a key question which will no doubt
the Under-Secretary had no doubt, even though when we have raised the matter we have always been assaulted not with doubts, but with asseverations of impossibility; Oh, blessed be the Under-Secretary for he has no doubts!—
be considered is to what extent local politicians may wish to return power to district councils or"—
I must be fair and point out that the Under-Secretary went On—
keep it at Stormont for their own exercise of devolved powers.
The Under-Secretary thought it fair, as we think it fair and as the House must surely think it fair, that those who will be locally elected to decide these matters must at least have a choice whether they wish the powers to be given to local councils or kept under their own hands, as they are at present under the hands of Ministers.

Mr. Budgen: The right hon. Gentleman will know that many of us Conservative Members who do not follow these matters with the same particularity as he does have, nevertheless, put it to the Secretary of State that there may be something to be said, though it is not a very big point, for doing what we promised in our election manifesto we would do, which is to restore local government.
We have always received the reply that it would be unacceptable to the minority community. As a true Unionist, the right hon. Gentleman is concerned with the rights of the minority, so will he explain his understanding of how the minority community would become reconciled to such an enhancement of local government, as so helpfully suggested 'by the Under-Secretary?

Mr. Powell: I will respond to the hon. Gentleman's request. I would have said before resuming my seat that an additional commendation of the amendments to Conservative Members is that they provide a means, within the scope of the legislation, of achieving what the Conservatives held out in their election address to the people of the Province. It is about as near the realisation of the natural implication of those words as one could obtain.
I am asked how I reconcile that advocacy with the well-known assertion that a minority—I presume a different minority in different parts of the Province, but a minority here or a minority there—would as a consequence be maltreated. I reconcile that without difficulty. The House, ultimately, is the protector of all minorities within the United Kingdom. It is so by its nature, because the House is a congress of minorities. It could not, without destroying its nature, fail to secure equality of rights to minorities of every description in every part of the United Kingdom.
So long as Northern Ireland remains a part of the United Kingdom, and so long as the House retains the right of surveillance and control over Northern Ireland—a right which a new clause which we shall not be dealing with as early as the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) would have liked seeks to reinforce by legislative provision—this House remains the guarantor. I do not believe that the House would long remain passive when it was brought to its attention that such and such, under its aegis and protection, was happening in one part of the United Kingdom or another.
I need not rely on that ultimate recourse of all minorities everywhere in the United Kingdom. I rely upon the proceedings of the Secretary of State for the Environment in England and Wales. I have not followed the proceedings as closely as I might, but, from what I understand, the Secretary of State for the Environment goes to considerable lengths in saying and enforcing what local authorities under his surveillance can be allowed to do. Indeed, it appears that he sometimes seeks to exercise that interference in matters which might be left in the control of local authorities so that their ratepayers bear the consequences of their decisions.
Let that pass. We are no strangers in the rest of the United Kingdom to the fact that this House created local government. Local government is not the direct descendant of something in the Saxon kingdoms. In creating local government, this House has not set it upon the political waters to drift in any direction. A board or Minister has always retained supervision. There is no question but that powers will continue to be possessed by any Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in almost any conceivable circumstances of intervention in the event of certain trigger possibilities being realised. I cannot imagine that one would set up, in any part of the United Kingdom, a form of local government for which there was no ministerial responsibility to the House for the prevention of malpractice by local government.
That is my second and main point in answer to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West. It would inevitably be part of such a system that ministerial responsibility in the House would be there to be invoked. It would have to be justified, of course, but he would have that power and the House would be secure in the assertion that there was no question of minorities suffering from the exercise of local democratic responsibility.
My last observation is that in the powers that the district councils have there is considerable scope, if they like to indulge in it, for discrimination in the advisory, as well as the executive decisions which they take. There would be no difficulty in constructing situations of deliberate disadvantage to one part of a district or another part of a district.
I can speak only from my own experience. In my constituency, I have the whole or the greater part of three local authorities—one with a large Unionist majority, one with a large anti-Unionist majority, and one with a very near balance. I can assure the House that, far from being engaged in cutting one another's throats, they are engaged in administration, debate and the exposure of local needs and grievances in a manner which is extraordinarily like the behaviour of local authorities in Great Britain—except, of course, that their area of responsibility is much more narrow. So from my own knowledge and experience, Unionists and anti-Unionists who are elected, for example to the Newry and Mourne district council, may pass political resolutions by a majority, but when it comes to the administration and the provision of recreational facilities they do not discriminate between a Unionist village and a non-Unionist village. There would be a great row in the council chamber if such a thing were thought upon.

Mr. Budgen: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain how he understands the proposals made by my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Mitchell) in the event of the Bill becoming law? Would that not mean that an

enhanced local government in Northern Ireland would be ultimately considered and surveyed by the devolved administration within Northern Ireland, and thus be shorn of that guarantee to which he referred—the duty that each and every right hon. and hon. Member has in the House of seing that justice is done to every citizen of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Powell: I think that the hon. Gentleman has unconsciously reverted to the first half of my argument, because he is really talking about legislative devolution of the power to create by local law a local system of local government. It is not my conception of the United Kingdom that we proceed to create local government in that way, and I do not believe that that is what was meant or envisaged in the speech that I quoted of the hon. Member for Basingstoke. Knowing him as I and we iio, I would not believe that.
I have one last observation with which I want to leave the fruitful question which was addressed to me by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West. He might have asked, "Why have certain people succeeded in so brainwashing the right hon. Gentleman and his predecessors in that position that they apparently genuinely believe this absurd story that local government is unworkable and undesirable because it would be inherently discriminatory and therefore not desired by the minority?" Soon after the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor came to office, I said to him, "Don't believe me, don't take any notice, if you don't want to, of my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux), or of any of us, just go and ask. Just go, for example, to any of the district councils in my constituency, or all of them, and ask 'Would you like to administer water and sewerage in your area? Would you like to administer planning decisions?'"I am perfectly prepared to rest on that test, because I am absolutely certain what the result would be. It is what they say already, and it is not just the Unionist councils which say it. The Down district council, which does not have a Unionist majority, has been saying it just as much as the Lisburn district council, which has a Unionist majority. They would say, "That is just what we want." I cannot imagine any district council in Northern Ireland saying to the Secretary of State, "The last thing that we want are any more powers. The last thing that we deserve is any increased responsibility. We are quite content with swimming baths, playing fields and the odd bus shelter. Please go away, and take your wares somewhere else." I have always been prepared to ask. The same invitation is extended to the right hon. Gentleman.
12 midnight
The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West might ask "How came the brainwashing? Who does the brainwashing and why? In whose interests is it to assert and to seek to convince Ministers and the House that local government is rejected and unacceptable in Northern Ireland?" I shall tell the hon. Gentleman. It is the people who do not want Northern Ireland to be part of the Unix ed Kingdom. One of the ways in which they hope to see Northern Ireland moved out of the United Kingdom is by creating such a sense of frustration in Northern Ireland in that it is not given the same rights and forms of administration as the rest of the United Kingdom that in the end, in one way or another, it can be wangled out of the United Kingdom. It is because those who have spread


that view are opposed to the Union and recognise that local government is a commendation of the Union that that myth has been put about.
I believe that in my short speech that the Committee has received with relative patience, despite the hour, I have opened up preliminarily a large part of the area that will have to be considered in more detail as the Committee proceeds with its work.
I repeat that we are not saying: "Force the Assembly to have this or no alternative." What we are saying is that the Assembly ought to be able to choose these alternatives if it wishes. It ought to be able to choose executive without legislative devolution. It ought to be able to choose local government rather than centralisation. We ought not to narrow the scope. We ought to widen the scope. That will be in the spirit of much that the right hon. Gentleman said and of the opportunities which we provide for the Assembly.
I think that we are opening up an area of debate. It is a large subject. It is one that, at this stage, the Committee will want to traverse. It is convenient that by the witching hour one should at any rate have opened up the subject for discussion, from which point it can be continued perhaps with more likelihood of a happy outcome, on a later occasion.

Mr. Prior: On a point of order, Mr. Armstrong. I said about an hour and ten minutes ago that I felt that we should make a start on the amendment and see how we got on and that after deciding how, far we would get I would not expect the Committee to sit too late. The time has come when I should ask the Committee to report progress and ask leave to sit again.
To report Progress and ask leave to sit again.—[Mr. Thompson.]

Committee report Progress; to sit again tomorrow.

Argentina (Sporting Contacts)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Thompson.]

Mr. John Carlisle: I am most grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing this debate to take place, and to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for giving the House the chance, shortly after the witching hour, of hearing an important and topical subject that has been aired before in this place and outside. I am especially grateful to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for being in his place this evening and for his great interest and foresight in the subject that I am about to raise. It is his maiden speech upon it in an Adjournment debate and I wish him the best of fortune in his recent appointment.
British participation in the World Cup has been aired in this place and outside since the Falkland Islands crisis began many miles from this place and since the emergency debate that took place on 3 April, when the subject was raised, perhaps somewhat unwittingly, by my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Sir N. Fisher). My hon. Friend said that one sanction that could be used against Argentina in a terrible and unfortunate crisis was that of sport. He suggested that that sanction could be used in the forthcoming World Cup. I feel it right that we should debate the issue and the Government's attitude to Argentine and British participation in a great sporting contest.
Since the crisis began there has been an enormous amount of media reaction and speculation on whether the British teams of England, Scotland and Northern Ireland should take part. I and many of my hon. Friends have been heartened by the attitude adopted by the Government and expressed by my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. They have not wavered in their opinion that the British teams should go to Spain and take part in a wonderful competition. No doubt has been expressed about that. I am particularly pleased about that, because the House will know that since I entered this place I have been trying to divorce the attitude of Governments from sport and trying to keep politics away from sporting participation.
The Government seem to have adopted an interesting change of policy since the Moscow Olympics. They are now allowing sporting associations to make their own decisions. Many hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) and the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan), have asked several questions on this issue and the Government have not wavered from their decision to allow the teams to go, and, perhaps more importantly, not to put any pressure upon the respective football associations. I express the hope and desire that my hon. Friend will express no change of heart on the part of the Government. He will realise, like many others, that sporting boycotts rarely achieve what they set out to do. If history is to be taken note of, it is a fact that sporting boycotts in the past have probably harmed those who have tried to inflict them upon others rather than those for whom they have been intended. I speak in passing about South-Africa, where sporting boycotts have had little effect on the Government's attitude.
Since the Falkland controversy arose I have sought the opinions of others, especially those of Service men, who are supporting our cause as members of the task force, which is many miles from this place. There is no doubt that those who are serving us so gloriously and courageously in the South Atlantic are very much in favour of British participation in the competition. They realise, as do others, that it is a glorious chance to exhibit British patriotism and skill on the sporting field and to show some international co-operation, which we have lacked in the political arena but which sport has always provided.
To those who say that some members of our task force might feel that while they are fighting for their country it is not right that we should send sportsmen out to fight on the sporting field, I would say that their anxiety is not shared by those in the task force. The messages that many hon. Members receive through their constituents is that the men and women fighting on our behalf are as anxious as we are to have information about the sporting prowess of our nationals. They have especially requested video films of the end of the football season and have shown a great interest in what is going on in Britain. They will be very disappointed if we pull out of the World Cup.
Let us never forget that, in this argument, we are the innocents. We are fighting against an aggressor who used military force to take over a part of British sovereign territory, and many people would be very perplexed if it were believed to be appropriate to put pressure on the football associations to withdraw. We have nothing to be ashamed of in this dispute and our footballers will have nothing to be ashamed of if and when they go to Spain.
Another understandable fear that has been expressed is about the way that our fans might behave in Spain, especially if hostilities continue. I shall not dwell on that subject because I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the pamphlet that he produced and his real attempts to lessen the effect of spectator behaviour in the competition. I understand his fears, which are justified because of the way that British fans have behaved during the past few years. I also acknowledge the anxiety and fear that, if Argentina was competing alongside British teams and if British teams should play against Argentina, some trouble would occur on the terraces. Those fears are fully justified, but I do not believe that there is any justification for a British team to withdraw from the competition because it may happen.
We must inevitably talk about a hypothetical position, so we must begin to tread on dangerous ground. It is to be hoped that Scotland will get through to the second round, when it would be the first of the home countries to meet Argentina. If hostilities are still in progress no hon. Member or any British person could envisage a Scottish, English or Northern Irish team running on to the same field as an Argentine team. We hope desperately that the position will change before then. I pay tribute to the English Football Association and especially to its secretary, Ted Croker, who seems to be equal to the decision that he may have to take on the morning of that game. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) also believe that it is unthinkable that British teams should run on to the same field as an Argentine team if hostilities are continuing.
In that case I understand that it would be up to FIFA to make its own decision. Perhaps that might not be a bad thing. If there is a disappointment, it is that our world

partners in soccer and our European partners have not come out in full support of our own ideas, and against Argentina.
I fully appreciate their understandable efforts to divorce politics from sport. Nobody has tried as hard as I have to keep politics away from sport. But it should be recorded that we are somewhat disappointed that our European partners have seen fit to make no comment on this situation. Should such a situation arise, FIFA would be under great pressure. My personal view—I do not expect the Minister to agree—is that the onus would be on FIFA to expel the aggressor and to allow the competition to go ahead.
There will be absolutely nothing to be gained by withdrawal of the British teams now, or for any pressure to be applied by the British Government on the teams to withdraw. The Argentines would take no notice whatever of any move that we make and we would have no advantage in the competition or in the fight against Argentina in the Falkland Islands. A military junta consisting of three men in a closed room is hardly likely to take notice of a democratic decision taken by the electorate of this country. Such a decision would, I suppose, in some people's eyes be a patriotic gesture, but it would be ignored by Argentina and in no way would it assist our efforts to remove the aggressor from the islands.
Sport is a great healer. It cuts across all politics and many international situations. It is a prowess that can be achieved by individuals and by teams in a spirit that is prevalent, and notable, for us in this country and all those in the free world. I believe that the World Cup will give the opportunity to millions to see young men competing against each other in the highest spirit of the game. Many of those millions will have no concern about what they might consider as being a small squabble between two warring nations. They might be sympathetic to the British dilemma, but that sympathy would not go far even if we were to withdraw from the competition.
We owe it to the men of the task force and to the men of the nation to allow the players to go to Spain unimpeded to compete in the competition and to win as many games as they can. I trust that one of them—I hope that it is the English team, and I make no apology for saying that—will return with a trophy for the sideboard to show that English patriotism, skill and sportsmanship mean much in the world.
I hope that my hon. Friend will reinforce the view that he has stated, that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has stated, and that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland stated only yesterday, that we shall allow the British teams to compete and, I hope, win.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Neil Macfarlane): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, West (Mr. Carlisle) for giving me the opportunity to end recent press speculation and to place clearly on the record, once again, the Government's views on our participation in the World Cup.
I remind the House that, on 21 April, in answer to a question from the hon. Member for West Stirlingshiire (Mr. Canavan) I said:
There is no question of a boycott.
In answer to further questions I added that


as matters now stand, we have no objection to British teams taking part in international competitions where Argentina may also be represented."—[Official Report, 21 April 1982; Vol. 22, c. 258–9.]
I added that the position would be kept under constant review in the light of changing circumstances.
On 19 May, in answer to a question from the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), I repeated the Government's view that no objection was seen to participation in the World Cup finals. I also made it clear on that occasion to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, West that I had put no pressure on the three British football associations to withdraw.
It is the Government's policy to discourage all sporting contact with Argentina, either here or in that country at representative, club or individual level. Outside these two countries we see no objection to British teams or individuals competing in any international events where Argentina may be represented. This policy applies to all sporting events.
There are a number of reasons for this stance. It is the Argentines who are the aggressors and who stand condemned in the eyes of the world through United Nations resolution 502. We in the United Kingdom are the innocent party and, as I have said on several previous occasions, I feel that it would be grossly unfair to penalise our sportsmen and women by denying them the right to participate in international competition abroad simply because the guilty party, Argentina, does not withdraw from such competition. Certainly, Argentina has so far given no indication that its football team will not be going to Spain.
In addition, as I have said before, there must be many millions of people in this country who would think it strange if our teams withdrew from the World Cup because of the actions of Argentina, which is solely responsible for the battle of the Falklands.
As several hon. Members have indicated before, there would be no problem if the Argentine team had been, or were to be, banned from participation. My hon. Friend touched on that point. This is a decision which only the Federation Internationale de Football Associations could take. Its Brazilian President, Dr. Havalange, has already stated that no such ban on the World Cup holders will be made.
My hon. Friend has criticised UEFA for taking no action with FIFA. That is entirely a matter for our own home football associations who are members of those organisation. What debate might have gone on inside UEFA—or, indeed, within FIFA itself if the matter had been raised by Mr. Harry Cavan, chairman of the Northern Ireland Football Association, but also a senior vice-president of FIFA—I cannot say, because I have not been privy to any discussions within those organisations. This is a matter in which Government have no locus whatsoever.
I must emphasise that, however the Government view this situation, the final decision on whether to participate in the World Cup finals is one for the football authorities, and their players. Certainly the authorities have made clear their wish to participate in the World Cup finals.
It has, however, been reported in some papers that a few individual footballers—and perhaps one or two

administrators—have queried the morality of participation. Again, should any player feel that strongly on the issue, the decision whether to go must rest entirely with him.
Public opinion on this issue, like so many others, is difficult to gauge accurately. Certainly, there are indicators such as the recent poll by a Scottish newspaper, which showed that 90 per cent. of those asked favoured their team's participation in the World Cup. Like my hon. Friend, I have had—as one would expect—much correspondence on the matter. Virtually everyone who has written to me has favoured our teams going. Some have made the very valid point that, bearing in mind the love of football by the average Argentine citizen, any withdrawal by the United Kingdom teams would be greeted with great joy in Argentina and be regarded by them as a moral victory over us and presented by the Argentine Government as an indication of world opinion against Great Britain.
Some of the letters that I have had come from people with husbands or sons in our task force now engaged so heroically and perilously in action in and around the Falklands. I would like to quote from one letter from a lady whose husband is on one of our warships. She mentioned how many of her husband's colleagues enjoy their football and support our international teams and who would be saddened by any withdrawal from the World Cup. She said:
Argentina must be gloating over the fact that with the possibility of England withdrawing, they may possibly retain the World Cup (though not the Falkland Islands). As the wife of a sailor serving his country, I ask you please to consider these facts
Another letter says:
What a boost to the spirits of our armed forces if they won, and if not, they would have had a go.
A third commented that a boycott
May even be misconstrued as guilt or misreported as action taken by FIFA against the aggressor.
I return to press speculation, to which my hon. Friend referred. There have been some inferences that, despite my public statements, I have been quietly pressing our football authorities behind the scenes to withdraw from the World Cup. This I emphatically deny. I am in constant touch with the football authorities about the World Cup and a whole range of other footballing matters, and have been since I took office in this post last September. In answer to their questions, I have told them simply that the Government see no objection to their going to Spain. Indeed, as my hon. Friend was kind enough to mention, only three days ago a leaflet of guidance for people travelling to the World Cup was published and distributed under cover of a press statement from me, demonstrating that my Department has gone to some lengths to tackle the potential problem of hooliganism in Spain. My officials have visited all the centres where first round matches are to be played and advised local officials of the preventive measures that we take in Britain. I have visited Madrid for talks with my opposite number.
I have mentioned public opinion in this country. There is also the matter of Spanish public opinion in relation to its effect upon those British supporters who will be going to Spain in support of their teams and in relation to some of the 4 million British people who travel to Spain every year for their holidays.
It has been reported that, because of Spain's cultural and historical links with Latin America, and for other


reasons, public opinion in Spain is running high in connection with the Falklands issue in sympathy with Argentina. For this reason, I think that there must be some increased risk of incidents resulting from contacts between a variety of visiting football fans. We have, however, received assurances from the Spanish Minister for Culture and her Secretary of State for Sport, from the Royal Organising Committee for the World Cup, from regional civil governors, chiefs of police, stadia authorities and so on, that the British teams and their fans are most welcome and that they will enjoy the traditional hospitality which Spain offers our people.
Government business permitting, I intend to be in Spain for a few days of the first phase of the World Cup and will keep in close contact with our three football associations.
To conclude, I repeat that the final decision on whether our three teams participate in the World Cup finals lies solely with the football authorities, and their players. The Government see no objection to their taking part. I hope that this statement will end all future speculation and I;am sure that the House will join me in wishing our three teams great success.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes past Twelve o'clock.